Does Clinton have a shot in South Dakota in the general?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It went for her in both primaries, contradicting nearby states and conventional wisdom.

[Mallow]

Not a realistic shot, no. She'd need to win with a national margin of 20 or better.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry lost Indiana by 20 in the 2004 general.
Obama lost Indiana in the 2008 primary.
Boy, was he toast in Indiana under this argument.

[LLR]

She'll lose it by single digits, if it becomes a total landslide or Johnson spends time there, it could be really close.

[ElectionsGuy]

The only time the primaries impact a pre-existing political status of a state/area in the general election is when the nominee loses said state/area overwhelmingly. Ex: Obama in Kentucky/West Virginia after 2008, Trump in Utah, eastern Idaho.

No, she doesn't.

[Xing]

Probably not, but who knows, maybe Happy South Dakota Farmers can pull off another miracle for her.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Probably not, but it can't be entirely rulled out at this point. I would guess 55-40-5 at this point.

[IceSpear]

No

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

I would believe she does. Trust me....old people here especially old farmer women worship Hillary like crazy lol.

[tinman64]

No, but she could reach Obama's 08 level in the state (roughly 43-44%)

[Xing]

I would believe she does. Trust me....old people here especially old farmer women worship Hillary like crazy lol.

You heard it from a local, folks. Happy South Dakota Farmers might give her a chance.

[TDAS04]

I would love it if she won here, but it's not likely.  She's more likely to win South Dakota than any of the other Plains states stretching from North Dakota to Texas, but she probably won't win any of them.

[Green Line]

She definitely has a shot.  I would call it 52-48 Trump at the moment but moving in Her direction.

[cinyc]

Given the current state of polling, Clinton has about as much of a chance of winning R+10 South Dakota as Trump does of winning D+6 New Jersey - not much of one.

[Green Line]

Given the current state of polling, Clinton has about as much of a chance of winning R+10 South Dakota as Trump does of winning D+6 New Jersey - not much of one.

Are you factoring in the polling bias against Hillary?  That accounts for at least another 5-6 points.

[Podgy the Bear]

The Democrats have run close in several elections over the past 40 years (1976, 1988, 1992, 1996).  Plus a fairly good tradition at the state level.  It would be difficult for Hillary to win the state--but I think that spending time, effort, and money in small states such as South Dakota can make it competitive as November rolls around.

[cinyc]

Given the current state of polling, Clinton has about as much of a chance of winning R+10 South Dakota as Trump does of winning D+6 New Jersey - not much of one.

Are you factoring in the polling bias against Hillary?  That accounts for at least another 5-6 points.

I don't believe in polling bias in June polling.  The polls are what they are.  And there is no evidence the polls are biased against anyone.

[Green Line]

Given the current state of polling, Clinton has about as much of a chance of winning R+10 South Dakota as Trump does of winning D+6 New Jersey - not much of one.

Are you factoring in the polling bias against Hillary?  That accounts for at least another 5-6 points.

I don't believe in polling bias in June polling.  The polls are what they are.  And there is no evidence the polls are biased against anyone.

There is ample evidence that the pollsters are fudging the numbers to silence #NeverTrump.  You need to add 5 points to any Hillary lead.  49-42 in Florida is 54-37 (give or take).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I've often thought the Dakotas would be a prudent investment for Dems, given they punch above their weight in the EC.

Never really got the impression that south Dakota was significantly better for the Democrats than the North though - is this because people are thanking farmers will be closer to a swing group than extractors?

[IceSpear]

I've often thought the Dakotas would be a prudent investment for Dems, given they punch above their weight in the EC.

Never really got the impression that south Dakota was significantly better for the Democrats than the North though - is this because people are thanking farmers will be closer to a swing group than extractors?

It's actually interesting, since in 2008 North Dakota was seen as a toss up whereas South Dakota was seen as likely R, despite the fact that SD was usually a touch more Democratic than ND. Turns out that's exactly how it ended up, with the ND polls being dead wrong and Obama's investment there not paying off.

Since then, there's been an influx of pro-Republican residents from the oil/fracking boom (could spell trouble for Heitkamp in 2018), so SD will almost certainly be significantly more Democratic than ND this time. I don't see her winning it no matter what, but if she's winning yuge nationally it could be within single digits.

[cinyc]

Given the current state of polling, Clinton has about as much of a chance of winning R+10 South Dakota as Trump does of winning D+6 New Jersey - not much of one.

Are you factoring in the polling bias against Hillary?  That accounts for at least another 5-6 points.

I don't believe in polling bias in June polling.  The polls are what they are.  And there is no evidence the polls are biased against anyone.

There is ample evidence that the pollsters are fudging the numbers to silence #NeverTrump.  You need to add 5 points to any Hillary lead.  49-42 in Florida is 54-37 (give or take).

Sorry.  Quinnipiac University is not part of some vast pro-Clinton conspiracy to ensure Trump is not replaced as the nominee.  PPP, maybe, given their track record in Missouri, but most of the rest of the pollsters, especially the university pollsters, have no motive to skew results toward Trump.

[Anna Komnene]

I think it's very unlikely, but I don't like the whole Safe R/Safe D mindset... so maybe?

On another note, I'm forever disappointed that Stephanie Herseth Sandlin retired.

[Ronnie]

Yep, I think she'll put many states in play that we may not currently expect.

[Xing]

Of course, in a close race, Trump will easily win it. But South Dakota is pretty elastic, is it not? If Trump is really getting crushed nationally, I could see SD surprising us, or ending up much closer than expected.