The Sioux Falls Argus Leader today had a story about voter registration figures for South Dakota.  Here is a link to the entire story:  http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080530/UPDATES/80530048   In short:  Registered Democrats in South Dakota have increased 5% since 2006, while Republicans have increased less than 1%.  Meanwhile, registered Independents have increased 10%.   In real figures instead of percentages, registered Republicans still outnumber Democrats by 40,000 voters in South Dakota.  However, the nearly 76,000 registered Independents comprise 15% of the state's voters.    Key figure:  Democrats + Independents together outnumber Republicans by 35,000 in South Dakota.  That's out of a total of 508,000 registered voters.   Just food for thought, especially in an election where Independents are very much up for grabs.  Possibly it won't mean anything in the grand scheme of swinging South Dakota from "red" to "blue."  However, with that many Independents in play, and with public sentiment generally unhappy with Republicans, it's a stat that shouldn't be ignored.   Also, don't discount the number of South Dakotans who are dissatisfied with the war, and who personally know someone who has been sent on repeated tours of duty, or who has been killed or maimed.  South Dakota is a small state, and the war has had a disproportionate impact here.  Not even all the Republicans are eager to vote for four more years of Bush policies in the form of John McCain.  I have yet to see a single McCain campaign sign, but I've seen dozens of Ron Paul signs.  Again, that's not a firm indication that people will do anything more than register a "protest" vote in the primary, but it bears watching.

Yesterday the AP published an article about the last remaining Democratic primaries, in which the author madde a breezy, unsupported assertion that South Dakota's demographics are a lot like West Virginia, and therefore favor Hillary.  As a South Dakotan who follows politics, I found his basic premise so far off I wondered if he bothered to do even the slightest amount of work.

Intro You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.

Yesterday the AP published an article about the last remaining Democratic primaries, in which the author madde a breezy, unsupported assertion that South Dakota's demographics are a lot like West Virginia, and therefore favor Hillary. As a South Dakotan who follows politics, I found his basic premise so far off I wondered if he bothered to do even the slightest amount of work.

URL: http:// Label: Image and will look bold" type=button value=Bold> and will look italic" type=button value=Italic>

Basically, the AP reporter said that South Dakota's demographics favored Hillary because South Dakota was like West Virginia. Never mind that:

1. South Dakota's voters have a lot more in common with North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Iowa, and Minnesota than they do with voters in Appalachia.  Note that in all the states bordering South Dakota, Obama won, often overwhelmingly.  South Dakota's one remaining border state that has not yet voted is Montana, and Obama is favored there.

1. South Dakota is actually less white than West Virginia:  WV ~95% white, SD ~87% white (source: US Census Bureau).

1. South Dakota's principal minority group is Native Americans (~9% of the population), which is quite unlike West Virginia.  Note that it is conceivable that different minority groups might have different priorities and preferences when they vote.

Nope, none of those facts made their way into the pundit's analysis. The standard narrative is, "South Dakota is mostly white and rural; therefore it's just like West Virginia; therefore it's favorable to Hillary."  End of story.

That's not to say Hillary might not do well here, but the entire premise was wrong. Honestly, this primary season's stupid, lazy "reporting" and bloviating by pundits is like an elephant sitting on my head.  Make it stop!