SD-SEN 2004: How did Thune defeat the powerful Daschle?

[Suburbia]

Daschle, the first Senate leader to lose reelection since Goldwater defeated McFarland in 1952. How did that happen? How does McConnell, Reid, and Schumer hold on?

[President Johnson]

My assumption is overall trends and 2004 was a Republican year in an increasingly partisan electorate. Older progressives from South Dakota, who elected McGovern, were most likely dying off by around that time. Dubya and his surrogates also painted Daschle as obstructionist who would be weak on terror, causing him to lose the election by a very close margin.

[Storr]

It doesn't matter if you're the Majority Leader with all the money in the world when you're a Democrat in a fundamentally red state.

[SevenEleven]

Thune had an advantage having come within approx. 500 votes against Tim Johnson two years earlier. So presidential turnout and a more well-known profile made his path a little easier in 2004.

[Heir of Camelot]

It's hard for me to understand how Daschle won South Dakota in the first place. It's like a whole state of Eastern Montana.

[MT Treasurer]

If anything it’s testament to Daschle's strength/institutional advantages and Democratic strength in the Dakotas in general that he only lost by 1% to an extremely polished opponent who had the full support of the popular president, especially with that voting record.

[South Dakota Democrat]

I was an 8th grader at the time, but followed the race very closely.

Partisanship of the state was definitely a factor.  In addition, though, the Thune campaign was able to successfully portray Daschle as out of touch and having "gone Washington," perceptions that were not helped by the fact that Daschle bought a new house in D.C. and claimed his official residence as D.C. for tax purposes or something to that effect, or the fact that his wife was a lobbyist.

[South Dakota Democrat]

It's hard for me to understand how Daschle won South Dakota in the first place. It's like a whole state of Eastern Montana.

South Dakota (and many states) were much more elastic then, particularly down ballot.  The fact that Daschle beat an incumbent Republican in 1986 was not much of a surprise at all - the more surprising thing was that the margin was relatively narrow (3 points), while he had been leading by as much as 20 points during that campaign.  Also, when he was running in the 1990s, South Dakota wasn't even really that Republican at the presidential level, as Bill Clinton came pretty close to carrying the state both times.

Moreover, the state's at large House seat is the typical stepping stone to the Senate in South Dakota.  However, during this time, Tim Johnson, a Democrat, held this seat, so that somewhat insulated Daschle from drawing a strong challenger in 1992 or 1998.

If you look at South Dakota's congressional representation, historically, they have been perfectly willing to send Democrats to Congress for much of the 20th century.  As recently as 2008, both one of the Senate seats and the House seat were retained by the Democrats in blowout margins, with both Dems getting over 60% of the vote.  Gubernatorial elections have seen more of a drought for the Democrats, as they haven't won the governor's mansion since the 1970s, the largest period of one party control of the governorship of any state in the country (although Billie Sutton came within 3 points in 2018!).

[Suburbia]

It doesn't matter if you're the Majority Leader with all the money in the world when you're a Democrat in a fundamentally red state.

So if Tester replaces Schumer, he is finished in 2030 or 2036?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

It doesn't matter if you're the Majority Leader with all the money in the world when you're a Democrat in a fundamentally red state.

So if Tester replaces Schumer, he is finished in 2030 or 2036?

No - being Majority Leader could help. It just wasn't enough in Daschle's case.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

We are talking about 2004 before the 2006 realignment that changed the South like VA, NC, OH, CO, NV, FL from reliable red states to Purple states, due to Bush W in 2005 botching the Katrina crisis like Trump has during Covid 19. That why Ds won Congress in 2006.

Tester isnt finished since MT is gonna be the red state Rs hoped it to due to Bullock's entry into Senate race

[South Dakota Democrat]

It doesn't matter if you're the Majority Leader with all the money in the world when you're a Democrat in a fundamentally red state.

So if Tester replaces Schumer, he is finished in 2030 or 2036?

No - being Majority Leader could help. It just wasn't enough in Daschle's case.

I would contend that being Democratic leader was at best a wash, and at worst had a negative effect on Daschle.  While he was able to steer money to South Dakota and rely on an incumbency advantage, his position did force him to take positions well to the left of the state.  To those who might say that it wasn't possible for a more conservative Democrat to win anyway, I will point out that at the same time that Daschle was losing by 1.2%, a moderate/conservative Democrat was elected to the House from South Dakota by 7.5%.  Being Democratic leader also caused him to, by necessity, block Bush judicial nominees, which didn't play well in South Dakota, which Bush won by about 20 points at the presidential level.

[Sir Mohamed]

It doesn't matter if you're the Majority Leader with all the money in the world when you're a Democrat in a fundamentally red state.

Hot take: It may actually hurt. If Jon Tester was Dem leader, it would be easier for any opponent to label him as "Dem party boss" and tying him to the most liberal members of the Dem caucus. I'm not sure this would fare well in MT. Since he isn't leader, he's more free to run on his own. To MT voters, he's just Jon Tester the farmer who happens to be a Dem and political moderate.

[Mr. Smith]

Daschle was on borrowed time anyway after '98. He'd have lost to Thune (or anyone else R) in 2010 for sure if it didn't happen in '04.