NC-PPP: Cunningham +2

[Panda Express]

link

Cunningham: 43%
Tillis: 41%

[SevenEleven]

Tar Heel Tillis stuck in place at 41%. You love to see it.

[SnowLabrador]

The last one, if I remember correctly, had Cunningham +9. He's going backwards, hence why I think Tillis is slightly favored.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The last one, if I remember correctly, had Cunningham +9. He's going backwards, hence why I think Tillis is slightly favored.

You see, when this trend continues and Cunningham's lead drops by 7 every month, he will lose the election by 33 points. Safe R. Trends are unstoppable forces.

[ON Progressive]

https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/1268518336578674688?s=19

[Epaminondas]

Could there really be 7% of NC voters who pull the trigger for Biden-Cooper-Tillis?

[tmthforu94]

Could there really be 7% of NC voters who pull the trigger for Biden-Cooper-Tillis?

I mean, if I were a North Carolina resident, that is probably how I'd vote as of today. Fed up with Trump's antics and ready for our country to move on. Voting to reelect Cooper who has been a good, pragmatic governor. Voting for Tillis to keep Biden and Democrats in check. I could see a decent number of moderate voters having that same mindset. That being said, it isn't a large voter pool, so I think Tillis will have a hard time winning if Trump doesn't win.

[Yellowhammer]

Could there really be 7% of NC voters who pull the trigger for Biden-Cooper-Tillis?

I mean, if I were a North Carolina resident, that is probably how I'd vote as of today. Fed up with Trump's antics and ready for our country to move on. Voting to reelect Cooper who has been a good, pragmatic governor. Voting for Tillis to keep Biden and Democrats in check. I could see a decent number of moderate voters having that same mindset. That being said, it isn't a large voter pool, so I think Tillis will have a hard time winning if Trump doesn't win.

Since when does "good and pragmatic" mean shutting down a political opponent's planned gathering in your state, whilst permitting and lauding similar massive gatherings for people who you're politically more aligned with?
Cooper is not as insane as your average dem but he isn't "good" either.

[America Needs R'hllor]

https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/1268518336578674688?s=19

The undecideds in the Senate race are tremendous news. Really hope this poll is accurate.

[Epaminondas]

Could there really be 7% of NC voters who pull the trigger for Biden-Cooper-Tillis?

I mean, if I were a North Carolina resident, that is probably how I'd vote as of today. Fed up with Trump's antics and ready for our country to move on. Voting to reelect Cooper who has been a good, pragmatic governor. Voting for Tillis to keep Biden and Democrats in check.

Is this not a contradiction?
the Democrats have arguably been "in check" for the past 10 years. Why  is more paralysis in Congress an attractive option to you?

[tmthforu94]

Could there really be 7% of NC voters who pull the trigger for Biden-Cooper-Tillis?

I mean, if I were a North Carolina resident, that is probably how I'd vote as of today. Fed up with Trump's antics and ready for our country to move on. Voting to reelect Cooper who has been a good, pragmatic governor. Voting for Tillis to keep Biden and Democrats in check.

Is this not a contradiction?
the Democrats have arguably been "in check" for the past 10 years. Why  is more paralysis in Congress an attractive option to you?

You think it is a contraction because you're speaking from the left. I am speaking regarding moderate voters, which are the type of people most likely to vote Biden-Cooper-Tillis...obviously liberals will support Cunningham. The Republican Party wasn't nearly as bad before Trump, his style of politics has been terrible for the party and the country. He makes no effort to unify the country. THAT is what the country should move on from, the rhetoric, not necessarily conservative policies. However, the Democrats have also gone further to the left, so having a Republican-controlled Senate helps "keep in check" them from enacting too liberal of an agenda. A common justification people have used to split ticket vote for a while.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is why Bullock is helpful, if Tillis survives, the path to the majority isnt closed off, since Bullick is wave insurance to a Senate majority and he hasnt been losing, he has been statistically tied in every poll against Daines

[MT Treasurer]

Some have compared this to NC-SEN 2008, but I think McSally is more likely to end up as the Elizabeth Dole of 2020 than Thom Tillis, and I don’t think it’s guaranteed that Tillis will underperform Trump (tbh, I’m getting Ron Johnson vibes from him).

But yeah, this is at best a Tossup for the GOP.

[TarHeelDem]

I can't decide if this is Tilt or Lean D. Would love to see more polling.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

MT and NC Senate races are tilting D due to rising Cooper and Cooney's chances in the Gov race, and they have coattails

[SnowLabrador]

I can't decide if this is Tilt or Lean D. Would love to see more polling.

It's a tossup.

[eax]

Cunningham will outrun Biden.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I know that this race is probably the biggest tossup of this cycle, but with Cunningham supposedly being a bad recruit and yet still managing to keep this race competitive, I can't help but wonder if Jeff Jackson (supposedly the best recruit possible) is kicking himself over not running against Tillis instead. If he intends to run for Burr's seat next cycle, that might end up being a bigger gamble, especially if Biden becomes President.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I know that this race is probably the biggest tossup of this cycle, but with Cunningham supposedly being a bad recruit and yet still managing to keep this race competitive, I can't help but wonder if Jeff Jackson (supposedly the best recruit possible) is kicking himself over not running against Tillis instead. If he intends to run for Burr's seat next cycle, that might end up being a bigger gamble, especially if Biden becomes President.

I maintain that - judging from how everyone involved in getting him not to run behaved - Jackson has some sort of really ugly skeletons in his closet.  Whatever you think of the folks running the DSCC, they're not stupid and they want to flip the Senate too, so you gotta ask why from their perspective it'd make sense to keep Jackson out in favor of Cunningham.  On paper, Jackson's an A-list - or at worst, very strong B-list - recruit and Cunningham is a C-list recruit.  

The Democratic Party's donor class wasn't really paying attention to this race at the time and to the extent it did, most of the establishment types seemed to want Jackson (who'd been being billed as a major rising star...talk that seems to be quietly fading somewhat lately, I should add).  Maybe I'm missing something, but from what I can see, the only reason that makes sense here is that the opposition research parties generally do before every race on their own candidates to avoid being caught off guard led to the DSCC finding something really bad which made it worth running someone who was a far weaker candidate on paper.  

[Progressive Pessimist]

I know that this race is probably the biggest tossup of this cycle, but with Cunningham supposedly being a bad recruit and yet still managing to keep this race competitive, I can't help but wonder if Jeff Jackson (supposedly the best recruit possible) is kicking himself over not running against Tillis instead. If he intends to run for Burr's seat next cycle, that might end up being a bigger gamble, especially if Biden becomes President.

I maintain that - judging from how everyone involved in getting him not to run behaved - Jackson has some sort of really ugly skeletons in his closet.  Whatever you think of the folks running the DSCC, they're not stupid and they want to flip the Senate too, so you gotta ask why from their perspective it'd make sense to keep Jackson out in favor of Cunningham.  On paper, Jackson's an A-list - or at worst, very strong B-list - recruit and Cunningham is a C-list recruit.  

The Democratic Party's donor class wasn't really paying attention to this race at the time and to the extent it did, most of the establishment types seemed to want Jackson (who'd been being billed as a major rising star...talk that seems to be quietly fading somewhat lately, I should add).  Maybe I'm missing something, but from what I can see, the only reason that makes sense here is that the opposition research parties generally do before every race on their own candidates to avoid being caught off guard led to the DSCC finding something really bad which made it worth running someone who was a far weaker candidate on paper.  

I was under the impression that Jackson himself was the one who didn't want to run, but you might be onto something that the party's organizational arm had some influence in it. It's speculation, but it does sort of add up.

[LabourJersey]

Could there really be 7% of NC voters who pull the trigger for Biden-Cooper-Tillis?

I mean, if I were a North Carolina resident, that is probably how I'd vote as of today. Fed up with Trump's antics and ready for our country to move on. Voting to reelect Cooper who has been a good, pragmatic governor. Voting for Tillis to keep Biden and Democrats in check.

Is this not a contradiction?
the Democrats have arguably been "in check" for the past 10 years. Why  is more paralysis in Congress an attractive option to you?

You think it is a contraction because you're speaking from the left. I am speaking regarding moderate voters, which are the type of people most likely to vote Biden-Cooper-Tillis...obviously liberals will support Cunningham. The Republican Party wasn't nearly as bad before Trump, his style of politics has been terrible for the party and the country. He makes no effort to unify the country. THAT is what the country should move on from, the rhetoric, not necessarily conservative policies. However, the Democrats have also gone further to the left, so having a Republican-controlled Senate helps "keep in check" them from enacting too liberal of an agenda. A common justification people have used to split ticket vote for a while.

This type of thinking is pretty outdated.

A Republican Senate would not be a "check" on "too liberal an agenda." It would mean that Biden would not get any piece of his agenda through the Senate. None. It's a vote for paralysis.

I understand the idea of a check on an executive is how the Constitution theoretically is supposed to work but we live in a country with extremely ideological parties with no interest in helping one another. You either get a trifecta, and thus two years of setting an agenda, or paralysis. Those are the only two options.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I know that this race is probably the biggest tossup of this cycle, but with Cunningham supposedly being a bad recruit and yet still managing to keep this race competitive, I can't help but wonder if Jeff Jackson (supposedly the best recruit possible) is kicking himself over not running against Tillis instead. If he intends to run for Burr's seat next cycle, that might end up being a bigger gamble, especially if Biden becomes President.

I maintain that - judging from how everyone involved in getting him not to run behaved - Jackson has some sort of really ugly skeletons in his closet.  Whatever you think of the folks running the DSCC, they're not stupid and they want to flip the Senate too, so you gotta ask why from their perspective it'd make sense to keep Jackson out in favor of Cunningham.  On paper, Jackson's an A-list - or at worst, very strong B-list - recruit and Cunningham is a C-list recruit.  

The Democratic Party's donor class wasn't really paying attention to this race at the time and to the extent it did, most of the establishment types seemed to want Jackson (who'd been being billed as a major rising star...talk that seems to be quietly fading somewhat lately, I should add).  Maybe I'm missing something, but from what I can see, the only reason that makes sense here is that the opposition research parties generally do before every race on their own candidates to avoid being caught off guard led to the DSCC finding something really bad which made it worth running someone who was a far weaker candidate on paper.  

I was under the impression that Jackson himself was the one who didn't want to run, but you might be onto something that the party's organizational arm had some influence in it. It's speculation, but it does sort of add up.

From what I’ve read, Jackson was about to run and the DSCC has a meeting where they told him if he ran, he’d get no support from the national party and then proceeded to recruit Cunningham

[Lief 🗽]

New Poll: North Carolina Senator by Public Policy Polling on 2020-06-03

Summary: D: 43%, R: 41%, U: 16%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details