Blue wave breaks up at S.D. border

Post-election analysis of the Blue tsunami that swept across most of our nation on Nov. 3 is starting to fade from headlines, but little has been offered to explain why some states – including South Dakota – apparently stood on high enough ground to avoid the sweeping power of the Blue rout of GOP candidates.

The 2026 Republican sweep in South Dakota replicated the pattern of the last many years of elections, as Republican candidates won the U.S. House and Senate races and all statewide office races including Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State, which, coupled with supermajority victories in both the S.D. House and Senate guarantees that South Dakota will continue as a Republican trifecta state (single party control of both legislative chambers and governor's office) and Republican  triplex state (single party control of all three top executive offices). South Dakota Republican victories in statewide executive and legislative races stand in contrast to significant gains Democrats enjoyed in state executive and legislative races nationwide. 

I have no empirical evidence to offer readers in evidence of why the Republican stronghold in South Dakota avoided the 2026 Blue tsunami, but I am willing to offer my opinion. It begins with candidate recruitment. The S.D. Democratic Party failed to field a candidate for 22 of the 35 SD Senate seats and 28 of the SD House seats. The party also failed to recruit an attorney general candidate or a U.S. Senate candidate. The widespread absence of county Democratic Party organizations and an adequately funded and staffed state party organization as recruitment vehicles is a part of the reason for failure in recruitment, but there are other explanations including the adage "success begets success". The S.D. Republican Party with its winning ways is in a better position to recruit candidates than is the Democratic Party with its poor success record in South Dakota races dating back to statehood with only temporary interruptions during periods of economic downturns.

Campaign funding is also a reason for Republican successes. It is simply easier to raise campaign funds for a likely winner than it is to do the same for a long-shot challenger. This is true with both federal executive and congressional seat candidates and state executive and legislative seat candidates. The recent national midterm election has revealed that having the highest level of funding does not guarantee success if the opponent enjoys sufficient funding to mount a competitive campaign. For Democratic candidates in South Dakota seeking election to the U.S. House or Senate and those candidates seeking a statewide executive office gaining statewide name recognition is critical. Voters are unlikely to support your candidacy if they have not heard of you. Mass media buys and social media followings are the secrets to gaining name recognition. Both require significant funding to begin a competitive campaign. Due to inadequate funding, pre-election polling showed South Dakota Democratic candidates for the U.S. House, S.D. Governor's Office and statewide executive offices were not familiar names to South Dakota voters, even as election day approached. This was true as the Republican Party advanced widely recognized candidates Mike Rounds, Marty Jackley and Larry Rhoden.

Another reason for Democratic Party election losses in South Dakota is found in policy positioning. South Dakota has been a fiscally conservative state since 1889 statehood. Republicans early on captured the reputation of being the party of low taxes and limited government and the party has won votes because of its reputation. 

South Dakota Democrats have tried with limited success to convince voters that state revenue that is too limited results in serious voids in state support for K-12 and post-secondary education, preschool care, health care and low-income citizen needs. Likewise, criticism of the regressive nature of the South Dakota tax system has not resulted in Democratic Party gains. Up until the 1970s, I identified the S.D. Republican Party as a moderate fiscally conservative party ó but that changed with the 1973 Roe v Wade abortion ruling. The abortion issue presented a new fissure in SD politics as the Republican Party quickly became the anti-abortion party and the Democratic Party became the pro-choice party. A major rupture in South Dakota working class Catholic and nondenominational Christian support for Democrats occurred as the party's pro-choice position came under attack from the pulpit.  Soon, other cultural issues such church-state relations, gun rights, and gay and transgender issues surfaced as points of division between the two parties. The beliefs of a majority of South Dakota voters led them to support Republican Party positions on the cultural issues. Even when Republican Party policy becomes too extreme on fiscal or cultural issues, South Dakota voters correct the craziness with direct democracy rather than embracing the Democratic Party.

While voters in rural states across the South and the Midwest sent the Republican Party a scolding message on Election Day because of economic pain brought on by Trump's war, tariffs, and trade policies, South Dakota voters continued to support Republican candidates at the county, state and national level. The full explanation for South Dakota election results eludes me.