and playing well with (a certain segment) of the public. As unfathomable as that may seem ...
Bona fides, if you will ...

And she has no empathy to restrain her cruelty

These are MAGA values

The reality is that this will play to the Conservative base. She will be defended vociferously by a certain segment of the base. The more she gets attacked by "Liberals" the more she will be a martyr and a victim that Conservatives need to defend. It is a very well worn and played out strategy, but the media will dutifully report it as a interest story rather and reporting on it as a tactic that Conservatives use to bait conflict. Conservatives know that Liberals can't help but respond to stories about needless cruelty. They count on it to keep their base emotionally engaged in the culture war because nothing Conservatives do actually improves the lives of anyone except the wealthy. They keep non-wealthy supporters engaged by telling them how under attack they are, like cult leaders that isolate and separate their marks from family and society.

It will boost her in the attempt to become the VP pick. It would probably hurt her in the general, so the media may back away from the story to keep the race competitive, or they will focus on the "attacks" by the Democratic Party rather than why Noem deserves to be attacked. They may portray it as an attack on rural values (I know cruelty is not a rural value, it is a Conservative value).

Noem CHOSE to kill a dog that likely didn't need to be killed by shooting it. Even if you grant that the animal needed to be put down, there are humane ways of putting an animal down. Same with the goat. This was a deliberate act of cruelty, not "the way things are done". As Tennessee Brando said, "We aren't living in the 1850's...we have cell phones and cars."

the conservative base, i.e. cement heads who think a malodorous adulterous grifter with multiple bankruptcies should be head of the free world.

They seem to like that ruthless, outlaw approach.

She has an antisocial personality disorder. She made the claim about shooting her dog without thinking of how others might find it offensive because it didn't occur to her.

She thought it would make her appear “tough” and also show that she owns and uses guns. And maybe a little bit of trying to get ahead of the story.

None of which make her very appealing to animal lovers. Or anyone with a functioning brain.

Today, on Stephanie Miller, they were talking about this. They said there was no reason to do this except to get ahead of the story and break it yourself.

Her followers all love them. Many of them also love dogs, but I guess she didn't think of that.

Republican politicians love to describe themselves as "not a politician", thinking that the term alone is a turn-off for people. (And it might be; forty years of Reaganesque anti-government spew has really turned people away from the idea of politics)

I'd love to tell these hammerheads that if you are running for public office, then you are, by definition, a politician. But they say what their mentally-defective supporters want to hear.

killing animals and bragging about it gets the sought out goal.

Ugh!

and it doesn't go well so you kill your dog but you still really want to kill something so you kill your goat too?

Link to tweet

Blech