ND-SEN: But you are, Blanche, you are

[Zaybay]

Guys, the SC nomination only effects voters if they hold it until after midterms. Also, according to Pew Research, Republican enthusiasm is high, you guys think it can get higher? Unlikely. The reason Democrats are winning is because they have a larger base, a larger amount of enthusiasm, and the backing of independents, and if you guys are saying that the SC seat will really counter all of these, then I have nothing to say.

[Zaybay]

Strong Lean R 53-45 for Cramer.

King Lear, is that you?

She has been down by 4 and 5 in two of the three polls. Saying she loses by 8 is not that much of a departure from reality. H&ll, it is even with the moe man.

I do think that North Dakota will be one of if not the hardest state hit by the SCOTUS news for Democrats. North Dakota is very socially conservative and strongly pro-life. That being said, I don't think there is any reason to think that Heitkamp will lose by 8 at this point. Maybe SCOTUS turns a 2 or 3 point deficit into a 4 or 5 point loss, but we have not yet seen any evidence she will lose badly, or even that she's worse than a tossup.

Still think this race is merely tilt R, though I do think this is starting to look like it'll flip before any other Trump state seats outside of Indiana or (bizarrely) Florida.

How the h$ll am I King Lear when my guess falls within the moe of two of the three polls out?! Completely ridiculous and annoying!

The problem is that you are generally, from what Ive seen so far, the most hackish in favor of Reps when it comes to predictions. Yes, she is down in the polls, but she was in 2012. The campaign season has barely begun and Cramer has already said a load of stupid stuff. The tariffs are going to continually hammer the state. The state is elastic. Generally, I hate to make predictions this far out because there are too many variables that could swing the election one way or the other. Tossup is appropriate, Strong Lean R, at least this early, is not.

[Zaybay]

Inside Elections moved ND from Toss-up to Tilt R, meaning that ND is more likely to flip than NV or AZ according to them. And I thought Charlie Cook's Senate ratings were bad.

This is an unwarranted move on the part of Inside Elections. One bad poll for Senator Heitkamp, doesn’t change the fact that this race is a Tossup.

Pundits this year have generally been pretty poor. A similar situation occurred with Cook, where they moved PA-01 from tossup to lean R because of 1 poll by Monmouth that showed Wallace behind popular Fitzpatrick by 7, and only by 1 if taking likely voters, a usually R group, into account. They refuse to move obviously competitive races(AZ Gov, GA) to the competitive category, but keep races that seem likely or safe(WV, AZ senate) in the tossup category. Its odd.

[Zaybay]

Obviously the line of attack will be SCOTUS, with the aim being twofold: 1. To create a wedge issue where Cramer can demonstrate he will be much more dependable to conservatives on, and 2. To pressure Heitkamp to vote for the nominee. If she does, she will depress her base a bit but appease swing voters, if she doesn’t, she honestly probably just loses. The obsession of this forum on nonsense buzzwords like ‘retail politics’ is bizarre. She’s a strong politician who is going to have a tightrope to wall across, just like the other deep red state Democrats (and arguably a tougher path than any other senator - at least Montana and Missouri and Indiana were 20 point losses with some down ballot Dem support, while WV is historically Democratic. Meanwhile, ND was a 36 point loss in 2016 and has a much weaker Democratic tradition than WV...).

Lean R, toss up if Heitkamp votes for the nominee in a non controversial fashion (aka the nominee would be confirmed anyway).

This implies 2 things.

1. Voters have the SC on their mind when voting and its a major issue

2. Cramer is competent and can effectively deliver this message

3. Heidi is just a D to voters

The problem is that none of these statements are true. As other posters have noted, the SC is not really a top issue when it comes to politics. Many people dont even know one SC justice, much less the partisan composition of it. The myth that the SC seat matters came from the jumbled explanations trying to figure out how Trump won. And like many others, its incorrect.

Cramer is also unable to deliver this message effectively. He is a gaffe machine, as shown when he made that woman comment a month ago. His ads have been pretty bad, saying "we all like Heidi". There was a reason this guy was not the first choice of the Rs.

Heidi also is a great politician, similar to Collins in caliber. I agree with you that retail politics is a bit overused in these forums, but the phrase has some truth to it. Her ads have highlighted bipartisan appeal, and many Rs even admit to being fans of her. A state like ND has very few people, so going out and doing things like townhalls and events can sway elections.

And one point I would like to make to the entire forum is to be weary of polls from ND. They are awful. ND has weird laws when it comes to polling, such as not being able to do Live caller, which is considered one of the best types of polling. There is also no Voter registration in ND, so you cant tell how many Ds or Rs are in the state. Pollsters usually just guess, and that can be bad in wave elections such as this. In 2012, Berg was predicted to win the state by 5.5%, outside the MOE, he lost by 1%.
Also, similarly to IN, there are only like 2 polls, so we should probably wait for more data.

Or, you know, we can just keep getting Texas Senate polling, cause its not like every result is around Cruz+6 /s

[Zaybay]

I think Heitkamp is a clear underdog.  When given a choice between a Republican and someone who is Republican lite, Republican-leaning voters are usually going to go with the actual Republican.  I wouldn't count her out yet, and an upset is possible, but I think it is more likely that she loses than wins at this point.

I would be careful with that line of thinking. While most voters are partisans who will toe the party line, candidate quality is important, especially in highly elastic states such as ND. I mean, look at Scott Brown, Cory Gardner, Jon Tester, or Joe Manchin. They won in safe states because of who they were.
I would also be careful with polling from ND, the laws are rather strict, you cant do live caller, and many high quality outlets would never touch the state. That's why Dems usually over preform in polling here, similar to NV.
I think this race is a tossup, with it going either way, but I will say, the tariffs are going to make an impact on the race, its just a question of how much.

Also, Welcome to Atlas! Hope you have as much fun posting and hottaking as we do!

[Zaybay]

In a wave election (which is what everyone is assuming 2018 will be), the winning party tends to win virtually all the competitive/lean races. This happened in 2014 and 2016, and Heitkamp is way too strong to lose to Cramer in such a pro-Democratic environment in such a incumbent-friendly state. I think this race will start trending away from Republicans around Labor Day, with Heitkamp wrapping it up after the first debate. Granted, I have Republicans winning IN, MO and TN right now, but I’m not sure about those states (Democrats would win TN and MO if the election were held today).

If the 2017 elections (and 2018 special elections) are any indication, any wave in 2018 is only conditional: Democrats will 'wave' in urban and metropolitan areas, but not in rural areas. Since North Dakota is not a metropolitan state, it may not be affected by any wave and may even trend more R. This is a far more Republican state than even the one Mitt Romney carried in 2012, when Heitkamp was elected. Obama got 38% of the vote then, but Hillary only got 27% of the vote. 1 in 4 of the Democratic voters who helped Heitkamp to her original election simply don't exist any more.

GARBAGE!Nothing has shown this, literally nothing. In fact, the wave is concentrated not in metros, but in rural and suburban areas.

[Zaybay]

Endorsement for Heidi today!

Grand Forks mayor endorses Hedi Heitkamp
http://www.westfargopioneer.com/news/government-and-politics/4471297-grand-forks-mayor-mike-brown-endorses-heidi-heitkamp-senate

He supported DT last election, BTW, and is mayor of the third largest city in ND.

[Zaybay]

Why the left would be particularly optimistic about North Dakota at the moment is beyond me.

....because its a senate seat we hold? And we won it in 2012? And there is a strong chance we hold it again?

[Zaybay]

Why the left would be particularly optimistic about North Dakota at the moment is beyond me.

....because its a senate seat we hold? And we won it in 2012? And there is a strong chance we hold it again?

Except that in 2012, Romney won the State by a margin of 188,320-124,966, a margin of 19.62%. Heitkamp won re-election in the same year 161,337-158,401 which is a margin 0.9%. In 2016, the State went to Trump by 35.8 points, Senator Hoeven won re-election by 61.5 points and Representative Cramer won re-election by 45.4 points. President Trumps second highest approval rating by State is currently in North Dakota, he has come out for Cramer in the election and Senator Heitkamp has consistently voted against significant administration objectives in the areas of taxes, immigration, health care and judicial appointments (excluding her vote in favor of Justice Gorsuch), just to name a few. If the economy remains strong by the November elections and barring some substantial unforeseen event which significantly damages the President, I would not advise you to put much money on Heitkamp winning re-election.

1. ND is a small state, and highly elastic. Obama almost won it in 2008.
2. Heidi was actually predicted to lose in that race, and she was basically trianged. Her win was out of nowhere, and now, she is a moderately popular incumbent.
3. ND is not Trump's second highest state, in fact, he actually has a low approval rating there relative to other states. MC, which does state polls for each state, has his net approval there as +5.
4. Collins has also voting against her state's interest. So has Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, Cory Gardner, etc. The key is how you sell it, not how you vote. Cory sells himself poorly, and thats reflective in polling. Tester, meanwhile, sells himself excellently, and so he is favored to win in a state Trump won by 20 points.
5. Senators from the oppo party have a weirdly high rate of reelection, like 95%, I think.
Im not saying shes a shoe in, but shes not down either.

[Zaybay]

I would not use this statistic, as the tariff situation, which did bring down his approvals in the state, is hard to see. Just use his current approval from Gallup in the state, which pegs it at 57% currently. And, while I do believe Gallup is a good source, its always good to take other sources, such as MC, Emerson, Yougov and other state by state approvals.

The idea that ND is losing its competativeness makes little sense. Yes, the Dems were devastated during the Obama years, but so were they in WV, MT, KY, and WI, and it seems like they are making a comeback in all of these states.

And for the fourth thing, you highlight my entire argument. The voters approve of Heidi only a little  bit less than they value Trump, according to Gallup numbers. They trust her. In fact, Cramer actually has a low approval, even though he should have the higher one, according to partisanship. That is a good sign for Heidi. Again, I view this as a tossup race, but I dont think either candidate has the advantage here.

[Zaybay]

ND is a state where personality really matters. Cramer is rather poor in this category, where as Heidi is excellent. Sometimes, I wonder why we all worry about her, since she was losing polling by a large margin in a neutral year against the state congressman, and is now neck and neck with the state congressman in a very Blue year. But you can never be too careful.

[Zaybay]

ND is a state where personality really matters. Cramer is rather poor in this category, where as Heidi is excellent. Sometimes, I wonder why we all worry about her, since she was losing polling by a large margin in a neutral year against the state congressman, and is now neck and neck with the state congressman in a very Blue year. But you can never be too careful.

I wish people would stop saying "there was a polling error that underestimated her in 2012, so it will this time too."  That's just not how it works.  Polling underestimated Dems in 2010 and 2012, but in 2014 it massively underestimated the GOP.  2016 it also underestimated the GOP (but not by as much as people say).  It really does no good to say this is safe - it's clearly not safe.  (You didn't say it was safe, per se, but wondered why we should worry about her.)  I'm not saying she'll definitely lose, but the notion that she doesn't have anything to worry about is just not supported by the evidence.

I understand the argument that personality matters in these campaigns.  I come from South Dakota, where it was much the same way for many years.  South Dakota often elected Democrats to Congress.  The thing about that though, is that it's true until it isn't.  Daschle was popular and had no trouble getting elected, until 2004.  Same with McGovern, until 1980.  Same with Herseth (in the House), until 2010.  Tim Johnson, who retired in 2014, almost certainly would have lost as well.  You're treating these things like they're absolute rules that can't be broken.

Additionally, ND has swung to the right considerably in recent times.  Trump won it by almost 40 points.  Hoeven got over 75% of the vote in his reelection.  It was probably easier for her to win in 2012 than it is now.

The national environment may help her, so I'm not counting her out.  But to be under any illusion that she doesn't have anything to worry about or that Dems shouldn't be very concerned about this race is just malpractice, in my view.

You are correct. The polls underestimated Ds in 2012, and overestimated in 2014. But this is ND im talking about, the king of terrible polling. Live calling polls are banned in the state, and partisan registration is not a thing, so polling from ND is always terrible. Im not assuming a polling error is occurring, Im assuming that polling is terrible, like it is every year.

And you are right that personality is not everything. TBH, Im still hoping that personality is still an important factor.

ND is also a small state, so wild swings can be caused by only 20,000 voters switching ballots. MT went from a neutral state, to R+20 in just a short 8 years.

[Zaybay]

Big news:

https://twitter.com/Robillard/status/1023989524865536000

I know Heitkamp supported their degregulation bill, but...wow. I dont know if this is telling on how good Heitkamp is, how bad Cramer is, or how badly the Kochs are realizing they are losing their sway over the D party.

[Zaybay]

Posting this solely for MT Treasurer's reaction:

North Dakota nasty: GOP makes Heitkamp top target for defeat

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/20/north-dakota-senate-heitkamp-cramer-gop-787808

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's very confident in how elastic ND is!

The NRSC and Gardner aren’t exactly known for making smart decisions, especially this election cycle lol.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/1037449944221794304

So there's been some speculation that this poll is a ND poll... we don't know for sure, but if it is, what would y'all expect the results to be?

I'd guess somewhere in the neighborhood of Cramer +2.

I mean, Im not sure. Heidi could be leading, but I have no information to go off of. If its ND, then I will predict....nothing, cause I have no idea. I have heard its a DE poll though.

[Zaybay]

Apparently Heitkamp's internals show her behind as well. She's probably going to be triaged soon.

I would also like a citation, and would like to point out that the Dems trianging a winnable seat is incredibly dumb. They would probably sink 20$ million into it rather than give it up.

[Zaybay]

Incredible how Americans pronounce "Heidi Heitkamp" ...

Just watched one of her ads and you guys pronounce it "Hey-dee Heyd-kemp" instead of "High-dee Hight-kump" ?

I say "High-dee Heyd-kemp", so I guess its like a weird merger

[Zaybay]

AARP polled North Dakotans over 50:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: https://states.aarp.org/nd-2018-election-poll/

ND is not ancestrally D, so I will take this poll as a good sign. But, I will always say, POLLING ONE DEMOGRAPHIC IS ALWAYS BAD!

[Zaybay]

Ffs, none of the red state Dems are voting to confirm Kavanaugh. They'd demoralize their base and sink their chances for reelection. If Heitkamp wins it's going to be because female voters put her over the top. And Heitkamp knows this.

As long as Schumer don't got 2 republicans in the bag, there will be at least one or two dems to vote for him. There is no base to piss off in WV, only room for Manchin to grow if he does the right thing for his reelection by voting yes. I don't like Kavanaugh, and in an ideal world, I would want to stop him. But we have to save our red state dems, so confirm him even if he did it (plus he was a minor at the time of the alleged incident). He will also be confirmed just like Clarence Thomas.

Nonody in WV cares about how Manchin votes on Kavanaugh

http://wvmetronews.com/2018/09/10/west-virginia-poll-voters-say-manchin-should-vote-to-confirm-kavanaugh/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jsIRwc4tYzz9WjDei-kUcYUED_OewwG6/view

Yeah...they tell the pollsters that but they dont actually care in real life. The polls said Garland should be confirmed and Dems lost anyway because people dont actually care about this stuff except on a superficial level

Trump will whip up this issue in ND and other states if they vote no, and it will be different.

Nobody cares what Trump thinks or whips up either. Trump held rallies for Saccone and Moore and they still lost. And those that won like Handel and Balderson barely made it when those races shouldnt of even been on the radar.

Atlas keeps acting like Trump had this enormous amount of power to single handedly defeat a candidate even though the GOP is barely holding seats that havent voted Dem in decades

Morrisey and Cramer are much better candidates than Moore and Saccone, and WV and ND are much redder and have higher approval ratings for Trump than all of those places. Also it is midterm turnout, not special election crowds.

Doesn't matter. None of them will lose due to how they voted for Kavanaugh. If they lose then they were always going to lose. Its laughable that the GOP thinks that running on "appointing textualist judges" will bost GOP turnout. The average voter cant even spell textualist let alone factor in these things when they go to vote.

Also....Obama won Illinois by 25% in 2008, held a high approval rating there, and the Dems still lost the Senate race there in 2010. Why? Because national enviorment and fundamentals matter more than how much someone won by in the previous election.

It will boost GOP turnout a bit, but it will also sway the already turned out electorate in those conservative states to the GOP.

Just to pretend that the polling showing Red State Dems doing worse when they vote for Kavanaugh instead of against doesnt exist, when has a Supreme Court appointment in anyway changed a significant amount of voters to sway an election?

[Zaybay]

Does Heitkamp have much silent vote out there lurking (ppl who don't want to admit they are voting for a Dem? 

Also- is ND a state where a more sophisticated ground game can make a decent impact (and if so- does Heitkamp have the better campaign in this regard)?

1. No, in fact that isnt even a real occurrence. Its really just a way to justify outpreforming polls, which can easily be done by enthusiasm, unenthusiasm of the other side, partisan tactics, etc.

2. ND, being a rather small state population wise, can be decided by a couple of voters. In small states like this, ground games are what win the day. Heitkamp does have the ground game advantage, but Im unsure whether it will translate into anything, really.

[Zaybay]

Heitkamp does have the ground game advantage, but Im unsure whether it will translate into anything, really.

What does this even mean?

It means that even a good ground game wont mean victory. Its possible that even with the best ground game out there, the state partisan lean will just erase these gains. We can only see on election day if this is the case.

[Zaybay]

Safest prediction ever: If the next poll shows a closer race, Cramer fans will cling to the Fox poll, while Heitkamp fans will say that they knew the Fox poll was wrong and that Heitkamp is still going to win. I swear, the dramatic reactions to single polls around here make me question why I spend so much time here. I guess it's going to be pretty bad, now that we're in the home stretch.

Anyway, I always thought Heitkamp would have a hard time for reasons I've explained before, and while she's struggling even more than I thought, it's not like losing a seat in ND means that the "Democrats are in disarray." The Fox polls themselves suggest that both McCaskill and Donnelly could survive even as Heitkamp gets crushed, if you take the polls at face value.

I quite agree with this sentiment. It seems Atlas will take any singular poll and make the biggest deal possible about it, even if such poll is clearly an outlier. That doesnt appear to be the case for this poll, but we should get another on Friday, so that will be the true test on which poll is closer to the truth.

[Zaybay]

I doubt this will move many votes in ND

Looks like I was wrong. It moved votes towards Cramer!

And look at the abuse we took for saying that Cramer's "Akin comments" wouldn't matter in a state that gave a 36 point margin to the pussygrabber, haha.

The Atlas hivemind/echo chamber/circlejerk is powerful indeed and almost always buys into its own hype, lol.

This is the same forum that thought Heitkamp was the safest of all the Trump state Dems in 2017 (NOT just Romney states, many mind you). The delusion is real

Yes I was wrong on Heitkamp.

However, give me credit. I was 100% correct on the MO and IN senate contests. (Toss Up Tilt R, Dem Favored) respectively.

Its tilt D at this point

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/politicoalex/status/1047934249930772480

Either the race is completely over, or the NRs are making another really stupid decision by forfeiting the entirety of the airwaves.

[Zaybay]

Heitkamp is finished and she knows it



The other Poll who had Cramer up 10 want Kavernaugh confirmed something like 60-27.

From the SRA Poll that had Cramer up 10

So 34% of highly partisan and already motivated Cramer voters claimed it would of made them less likely to vote for someone they werent going to vote for anyway.

Noted

https://twitter.com/politicoalex/status/1047934249930772480

Either the race is completely over, or the NRCC is making another really stupid decision by forfeiting the entirety of the airwaves.

No...its just idiot strategists think a SCOTUS vote matters in a country where only 1% can name all 9 Justices

Well, Scott Brown didn't vote for Elena Kagan to be Associate SCOTUS Justice when he was in the Senate and that's why he lost in the end in 2012 and you keep telling us a SCOTUS Vote doesn't matter. Give me a break!

As an MA voter, I can clarify that Elena Kagan wasnt a factor in the MA senate race. A much larger factor was the fact that Brown had a pickup truck, TBH.