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

[Don Vito Corleone]

https://twitter.com/Zachary_Cohen/status/1002688709777649665?s=19

Reminds of when the Conservatives in Canada said "It's not no forever, but right now Justin Trudeau is just not ready".

[Arkansas Yankee]

To Take  down Heidi, Cramer has run against Schumer.  In the polarized Senate Hedi will have no power.  In this polarized setting either Schumer or McConnell will control the Senate.  Schumer in control will be a threat to North Dakota oil interests.  Every Democrat posting here knows that.  Most of you are in favor of that. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/KentonTilford/status/1002691417410560001

lol

I don't think you all understand, "We all like her, but..." is Upper Midwest for "This worthless excuse of a human being."

"We all like her, but..." cuts DEEP.

This.  It's like when they say in the south "Bless their hearts, but..."

[Politician]

To Take  down Heidi, Cramer has run against Schumer.  In the polarized Senate Hedi will have no power.  In this polarized setting either Schumer or McConnell will control the Senate.  Schumer in control will be a threat to North Dakota oil interests.  Every Democrat posting here knows that.  Most of you are in favor of that. 

LOL No, Heidi Heitkamp isn't a "pawn of Schumer" she's supportive of North Dakota's oil and is popular even among conservatives there.

[Politician]

https://twitter.com/Zachary_Cohen/status/1002688709777649665?s=19

Yep, Cramer is going full Braley here. Lean D.

[Arkansas Yankee]

To Take  down Heidi, Cramer has run against Schumer.  In the polarized Senate Hedi will have no power.  In this polarized setting either Schumer or McConnell will control the Senate.  Schumer in control will be a threat to North Dakota oil interests.  Every Democrat posting here knows that.  Most of you are in favor of that. 

LOL No, Heidi Heitkamp isn't a "pawn of Schumer" she's supportive of North Dakota's oil and is popular even among conservatives there.

Did I refer to her as a pawn.   NO! NO!!  My point is that is that in this polarized political era the Majority Leader has almost complete control of what comes to the floor.  Under Schumer judicial nominees and executive nominees who might be favorably disposed towards legal theories favorable to the oil industries will find their nominations sidetracked.    In addition regulatory action unfavorable to oil companies will find is my electing
there way forward.  There will be nothing of substance that Hedi will be able to do.

The only substantive alternative is McConnell as majority leader.  The only way North Dakota can insure this is by electing Cramer.

A similar argument can be made with regard to the regulation of firearms.

Hedi brings control of North Dakota by Schumer.  She can’t do anything about it.

[Politician]

To Take  down Heidi, Cramer has run against Schumer.  In the polarized Senate Hedi will have no power.  In this polarized setting either Schumer or McConnell will control the Senate.  Schumer in control will be a threat to North Dakota oil interests.  Every Democrat posting here knows that.  Most of you are in favor of that. 

LOL No, Heidi Heitkamp isn't a "pawn of Schumer" she's supportive of North Dakota's oil and is popular even among conservatives there.

Did I refer to her as a pawn.   NO! NO!!  My point is that is that in this polarized political era the Majority Leader has almost complete control of what comes to the floor.  Under Schumer judicial nominees and executive nominees who might be favorably disposed towards legal theories favorable to the oil industries will find their nominations sidetracked.    In addition regulatory action unfavorable to oil companies will find is my electing
there way forward.  There will be nothing of substance that Hedi will be able to do.

The only substantive alternative is McConnell as majority leader.  The only way North Dakota can insure this is by electing Cramer.

A similar argument can be made with regard to the regulation of firearms.

Hedi brings control of North Dakota by Schumer.  She can’t do anything about it.

You claim you didn't say she's a pawn of Schumer, than you go on to say just that in different words. But this is coming from a guy who predicted Moore would win.

[KingSweden]

To Take  down Heidi, Cramer has run against Schumer.  In the polarized Senate Hedi will have no power.  In this polarized setting either Schumer or McConnell will control the Senate.  Schumer in control will be a threat to North Dakota oil interests.  Every Democrat posting here knows that.  Most of you are in favor of that. 

LOL No, Heidi Heitkamp isn't a "pawn of Schumer" she's supportive of North Dakota's oil and is popular even among conservatives there.

Did I refer to her as a pawn.   NO! NO!!  My point is that is that in this polarized political era the Majority Leader has almost complete control of what comes to the floor.  Under Schumer judicial nominees and executive nominees who might be favorably disposed towards legal theories favorable to the oil industries will find their nominations sidetracked.    In addition regulatory action unfavorable to oil companies will find is my electing
there way forward.  There will be nothing of substance that Hedi will be able to do.

The only substantive alternative is McConnell as majority leader.  The only way North Dakota can insure this is by electing Cramer.

A similar argument can be made with regard to the regulation of firearms.

Hedi brings control of North Dakota by Schumer.  She can’t do anything about it.

She can do plenty about it. A scenario where Schumer is majority leader is one where Heidi and Manchin are still around, and probably a 51-49 Senate where they would exercise the ability to vote with Republicans on votes they please provided something hits the floor.

[JG]

To Take  down Heidi, Cramer has run against Schumer.  In the polarized Senate Hedi will have no power.  In this polarized setting either Schumer or McConnell will control the Senate.  Schumer in control will be a threat to North Dakota oil interests.  Every Democrat posting here knows that.  Most of you are in favor of that. 

LOL No, Heidi Heitkamp isn't a "pawn of Schumer" she's supportive of North Dakota's oil and is popular even among conservatives there.

Did I refer to her as a pawn.   NO! NO!!  My point is that is that in this polarized political era the Majority Leader has almost complete control of what comes to the floor.  Under Schumer judicial nominees and executive nominees who might be favorably disposed towards legal theories favorable to the oil industries will find their nominations sidetracked.    In addition regulatory action unfavorable to oil companies will find is my electing
there way forward.  There will be nothing of substance that Hedi will be able to do.

The only substantive alternative is McConnell as majority leader.  The only way North Dakota can insure this is by electing Cramer.

A similar argument can be made with regard to the regulation of firearms.

Hedi brings control of North Dakota by Schumer.  She can’t do anything about it.

She can do plenty about it. A scenario where Schumer is majority leader is one where Heidi and Manchin are still around, and probably a 51-49 Senate where they would exercise the ability to vote with Republicans on votes they please provided something hits the floor.

Actually, a 51-49 Democratic majority would be the best scenario for North Dakota since they would be one of the four swing votes along with WV, AL and IN (I think McCaskill and Tester are slightly more to the left if I remember correctly) and thus weld much more power than she would with a republican senate.

[Arkansas Yankee]

To Take  down Heidi, Cramer has run against Schumer.  In the polarized Senate Hedi will have no power.  In this polarized setting either Schumer or McConnell will control the Senate.  Schumer in control will be a threat to North Dakota oil interests.  Every Democrat posting here knows that.  Most of you are in favor of that. 

LOL No, Heidi Heitkamp isn't a "pawn of Schumer" she's supportive of North Dakota's oil and is popular even among conservatives there.

Did I refer to her as a pawn.   NO! NO!!  My point is that is that in this polarized political era the Majority Leader has almost complete control of what comes to the floor.  Under Schumer judicial nominees and executive nominees who might be favorably disposed towards legal theories favorable to the oil industries will find their nominations sidetracked.    In addition regulatory action unfavorable to oil companies will find is my electing
there way forward.  There will be nothing of substance that Hedi will be able to do.

The only substantive alternative is McConnell as majority leader.  The only way North Dakota can insure this is by electing Cramer.

A similar argument can be made with regard to the regulation of firearms.

Hedi brings control of North Dakota by Schumer.  She can’t do anything about it.

She can do plenty about it. A scenario where Schumer is majority leader is one where Heidi and Manchin are still around, and probably a 51-49 Senate where they would exercise the ability to vote with Republicans on votes they please provided something hits the floor.

You are being disingenuous.   Schumer will not bring the nominations to the floor.  He will not bring legislation favorable to the oil companies to the floor.  Hedi and Manchin can not force him to bring most of the nominations to the floor.  In fact I believe they have actually voted against most
of the nominees. She is playing a shell game with North Dakota.

Of course you are also looking forward to a Senate in 2021 with 55 plus Democrats and a President forwarding huge numbers of anti oil nominees.  You don’t want North Dakota to catch on to the scam at least this year.

[Arkansas Yankee]

To Take  down Heidi, Cramer has run against Schumer.  In the polarized Senate Hedi will have no power.  In this polarized setting either Schumer or McConnell will control the Senate.  Schumer in control will be a threat to North Dakota oil interests.  Every Democrat posting here knows that.  Most of you are in favor of that. 

LOL No, Heidi Heitkamp isn't a "pawn of Schumer" she's supportive of North Dakota's oil and is popular even among conservatives there.

Did I refer to her as a pawn.   NO! NO!!  My point is that is that in this polarized political era the Majority Leader has almost complete control of what comes to the floor.  Under Schumer judicial nominees and executive nominees who might be favorably disposed towards legal theories favorable to the oil industries will find their nominations sidetracked.    In addition regulatory action unfavorable to oil companies will find is my electing
there way forward.  There will be nothing of substance that Hedi will be able to do.

The only substantive alternative is McConnell as majority leader.  The only way North Dakota can insure this is by electing Cramer.

A similar argument can be made with regard to the regulation of firearms.

Hedi brings control of North Dakota by Schumer.  She can’t do anything about it.

She can do plenty about it. A scenario where Schumer is majority leader is one where Heidi and Manchin are still around, and probably a 51-49 Senate where they would exercise the ability to vote with Republicans on votes they please provided something hits the floor.

Actually, a 51-49 Democratic majority would be the best scenario for North Dakota since they would be one of the four swing votes along with WV, AL and IN (I think McCaskill and Tester are slightly more to the left if I remember correctly) and thus weld much more power than she would with a republican senate.

More dissimulation.   What is sad is you actually use this on people who do not understand the process. Heidi an Manchin won’t be on the Judiciary Committee.  Thus they will not be able to vote the nominees out of Committee.  With or polarized world they are not going to fight with Schumer to bring out of committees things he does not want.

[UncleSam]

Ya it probably would be worse for ND oil interests if Heitkamp is elected, I’ve yet to see a reason why that wouldn’t be the case. Dems in control would mean that there wouldn’t even be a vote on pro-oil interests etc. and no one has raised a credible counter argument to that.

But that’s an extremely subtle point and the reality is most people don’t vote on subtlety. Heitkamp is not going to lose if Cramer solely runs against Schumer, simple as that. And a Dem majority could be better for ND in other ways via better national outcomes, it’s not as though ND is entirely tied to oil interests.

Still watching Dem hacks try and seriously argue that oil interests would be helped by electing a Dem is pretty funny. The environmentalism issue is one that brings Dems a lot of voters throughout the country, just drives away others.

[Arkansas Yankee]

Ya it probably would be worse for ND oil interests if Heitkamp is elected, I’ve yet to see a reason why that wouldn’t be the case. Dems in control would mean that there wouldn’t even be a vote on pro-oil interests etc. and no one has raised a credible counter argument to that.

But that’s an extremely subtle point and the reality is most people don’t vote on subtlety. Heitkamp is not going to lose if Cramer solely runs against Schumer, simple as that. And a Dem majority could be better for ND in other ways via better national outcomes, it’s not as though ND is entirely tied to oil interests.

Still watching Dem hacks try and seriously argue that oil interests would be helped by electing a Dem is pretty funny. The environmentalism issue is one that brings Dems a lot of voters throughout the country, just drives away others.

I agree with you.  But the Schumer point has to be made or he Cramer will lose for sure.

Trump has already made the Schumer point in Tennessee at his rally for Blackburn.

Maybe the argument has to made over and over again so it is not so subtle.  It has worked in House elections with Pelosi.

[Virginiá]

Maybe the argument has to made over and over again so it is not so subtle.  It has worked in House elections with Pelosi.

That's seriously debatable. Obviously Republicans have used her as a liberal boogeyman for years, but to credit her with their success just because they happened to be using her at the same time as two GOP waves does not mean she caused those wins. It just means people think she did. Now that Obama is out of office, we've already had one instance (Lamb) where they went after him via Pelosi and it didn't do anything. He still won in a district that Republicans should have easily held. And in GA-06, where they used Pelosi as well, Ossoff still performed about as well as Clinton did.

One thing I've noticed in politics is that people tend to lean on attributing wins / losses to strategies purely based on correlation. For instance, Handel + GOP campaigned heavily against Pelosi. Handel won. Ergo, Pelosi = very effective. It's very poor logic that wouldn't cut it in most other cases. You need something else to back it up, and not polls that show already-reliable Republicans saying they'd be more likely to vote Republican when Pelosi is mentioned, mostly because those people were never going to vote for the Democrat anyway.

I expect attacks using Chuck Schumer to be significantly less effective than Pelosi, whose effectiveness is already highly questionable at best.

[OneJ]

Maybe the argument has to made over and over again so it is not so subtle.  It has worked in House elections with Pelosi.

That's seriously debatable. Obviously Republicans have used her as a liberal boogeyman for years, but to credit her with their success just because they happened to be using her at the same time as two GOP waves does not mean she caused those wins. It just means people think she did. Now that Obama is out of office, we've already had one instance (Lamb) where they went after him via Pelosi and it didn't do anything. He still won in a district that Republicans should have easily held. And in GA-06, where they used Pelosi as well, Ossoff still performed about as well as Clinton did.

One thing I've noticed in politics is that people tend to lean on attributing wins / losses to strategies purely based on correlation. For instance, Handel + GOP campaigned heavily against Pelosi. Handel won. Ergo, Pelosi = very effective. It's very poor logic that wouldn't cut it in most other cases. You need something else to back it up, and not polls that show already-reliable Republicans saying they'd be more likely to vote Republican when Pelosi is mentioned, mostly because those people were never going to vote for the Democrat anyway.

I expect attacks using Chuck Schumer to be significantly less effective than Pelosi.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Arkansas Yankee]

Maybe the argument has to made over and over again so it is not so subtle.  It has worked in House elections with Pelosi.

That's seriously debatable. Obviously Republicans have used her as a liberal boogeyman for years, but to credit her with their success just because they happened to be using her at the same time as two GOP waves does not mean she caused those wins. It just means people think she did. Now that Obama is out of office, we've already had one instance (Lamb) where they went after him via Pelosi and it didn't do anything. He still won in a district that Republicans should have easily held. And in GA-06, where they used Pelosi as well, Ossoff still performed about as well as Clinton did.

One thing I've noticed in politics is that people tend to lean on attributing wins / losses to strategies purely based on correlation. For instance, Handel + GOP campaigned heavily against Pelosi. Handel won. Ergo, Pelosi = very effective. It's very poor logic that wouldn't cut it in most other cases. You need something else to back it up, and not polls that show already-reliable Republicans saying they'd be more likely to vote Republican when Pelosi is mentioned, mostly because those people were never going to vote for the Democrat anyway.

I expect attacks using Chuck Schumer to be significantly less effective than Pelosi, whose effectiveness is already highly questionable at best.

I do not think you understand that in or polarized state that the Senate will be run by either Schumer or McConnell.  There is no other choice.  It is one or the other.  The Nation has to dcide which one should run the Senate.  That decision will have great consequences for the Nation.  That is the battle that will be fought this fall and in 2020.

I do believe anyone with connections to the oil and gas industry would want McConnell to run the show.

Since the EPA under the Democrats has pushed for farm ponds and ditches to be regulated by the EPA as part of the navigable waters of the US, I would expect most farmers and ranchers would want McConnell to run the Senate.

All I am saying is it our duty to make theses issues clear to the voters of North Dakota. If they chose Heidi and that leads to a Democrat majority, they will have to live with that decision.  Unfortunately I will have to live with it, too. 

[Virginiá]

I do not think you understand that in or polarized state that the Senate will be run by either Schumer or McConnell.  There is no other choice.  It is one or the other.  The Nation has to dcide which one should run the Senate.  That decision will have great consequences for the Nation.  That is the battle that will be fought this fall and in 2020.

I do believe anyone with connections to the oil and gas industry would want McConnell to run the show.

Since the EPA under the Democrats has pushed for farm ponds and ditches to be regulated by the EPA as part of the navigable waters of the US, I would expect most farmers and ranchers would want McConnell to run the Senate.

All I am saying is it our duty to make theses issues clear to the voters of North Dakota. If they chose Heidi and that leads to a Democrat majority, they will have to live with that decision.  Unfortunately I will have to live with it, too. 

I know how the Senate works, I'm just saying that the effectiveness of Pelosi (and now Schumer?) attacks is vastly overstated. Also, Republicans didn't weaponize Pelosi overnight, and she actually had to be speaker first to do that, so it's going to be hard to make Schumer into an attack ad when he hasn't actually been majority leader yet.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

[...]

I expect attacks using Chuck Schumer to be significantly less effective than Pelosi, whose effectiveness is already highly questionable at best.

I agree with all of this post. I will just add that, even though I have no evidence to back it up, I wonder if attacks on (((Chuck Schumer))) will be more effective than those on Pelosi.

Since the EPA under the Democrats has pushed for farm ponds and ditches to be regulated by the EPA as part of the navigable waters of the US, I would expect most farmers and ranchers would want McConnell to run the Senate.

Just so you know, this is false.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bidenworth2020]

Heitkamp's overall personality matters far more than any specific votes she has cast. The same holds true for other red state Democrats, particularly from smaller states like WV and MT. It’s unfortunate, but it’s just the way it is. It’s also why I never really bought Heitkamp being as vulnerable as most other people.

> implying she is very vulnerible at all

[Arkansas Yankee]

To Take  down Heidi, Cramer has run against Schumer.  In the polarized Senate Hedi will have no power.  In this polarized setting either Schumer or McConnell will control the Senate.  Schumer in control will be a threat to North Dakota oil interests.  Every Democrat posting here knows that.  Most of you are in favor of that. 

LOL No, Heidi Heitkamp isn't a "pawn of Schumer" she's supportive of North Dakota's oil and is popular even among conservatives there.

Did I refer to her as a pawn.   NO! NO!!  My point is that is that in this polarized political era the Majority Leader has almost complete control of what comes to the floor.  Under Schumer judicial nominees and executive nominees who might be favorably disposed towards legal theories favorable to the oil industries will find their nominations sidetracked.    In addition regulatory action unfavorable to oil companies will find is my electing
there way forward.  There will be nothing of substance that Hedi will be able to do.

The only substantive alternative is McConnell as majority leader.  The only way North Dakota can insure this is by electing Cramer.

A similar argument can be made with regard to the regulation of firearms.

Hedi brings control of North Dakota by Schumer.  She can’t do anything about it.

You claim you didn't say she's a pawn of Schumer, than you go on to say just that in different words. But this is coming from a guy who predicted Moore would win.

I NEVER PREDICTED MOORE WOULD WIN!!!

[KingSweden]

To Take  down Heidi, Cramer has run against Schumer.  In the polarized Senate Hedi will have no power.  In this polarized setting either Schumer or McConnell will control the Senate.  Schumer in control will be a threat to North Dakota oil interests.  Every Democrat posting here knows that.  Most of you are in favor of that. 

LOL No, Heidi Heitkamp isn't a "pawn of Schumer" she's supportive of North Dakota's oil and is popular even among conservatives there.

Did I refer to her as a pawn.   NO! NO!!  My point is that is that in this polarized political era the Majority Leader has almost complete control of what comes to the floor.  Under Schumer judicial nominees and executive nominees who might be favorably disposed towards legal theories favorable to the oil industries will find their nominations sidetracked.    In addition regulatory action unfavorable to oil companies will find is my electing
there way forward.  There will be nothing of substance that Hedi will be able to do.

The only substantive alternative is McConnell as majority leader.  The only way North Dakota can insure this is by electing Cramer.

A similar argument can be made with regard to the regulation of firearms.

Hedi brings control of North Dakota by Schumer.  She can’t do anything about it.

You claim you didn't say she's a pawn of Schumer, than you go on to say just that in different words. But this is coming from a guy who predicted Moore would win.

I NEVER PREDICTED MOORE WOULD WIN!!!

IIRC you did support Moore, though, even after the pedo stuff broke

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was Arkansas Yankees first post on the forum.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Roy Moore, and anyone's support or nonsupport of him, has nothing to do with the ND Senate race.  How about taking that discussion elsewhere instead of derailing this thread with it?

[Maxwell]

Underrated concern in this race - Will native americans and enviormental activists, a sizable chunk of the ND Democratic Base, actually bother to even fill out a ballot for the Senate race? I think this is more of a concern here than even West Virginia, where there were real protests over oil construction by activists and Heitkamp sided with the oil industry hard.

I feel like the margin in this race is incredibly influx because of those factors. Will the new people living here to work in the oil industry actually vote Heitkamp or will they abandon her for someone who will probably serve the industry better in Cramer.

[KingSweden]

Underrated concern in this race - Will native americans and enviormental activists, a sizable chunk of the ND Democratic Base, actually bother to even fill out a ballot for the Senate race? I think this is more of a concern here than even West Virginia, where there were real protests over oil construction by activists and Heitkamp sided with the oil industry hard.

I feel like the margin in this race is incredibly influx because of those factors. Will the new people living here to work in the oil industry actually vote Heitkamp or will they abandon her for someone who will probably serve the industry better in Cramer.

This is a very fair concern actually