Heitkamp praises Trump and says "He's like me!"

[Classic Conservative]

http://www.inforum.com/news/4240259-heitkamp-says-trump-whos-little-me-would-make-her-re-election-easier

[Skill and Chance]

I wonder if she is contemplating going Indie?

[Skill and Chance]

I despise Heitkamp, but in a state like ND personality matters more than issues. Her strategy worked in 2012, and it could very well work in 2018. Republicans really need to take this race seriously. I am worried about her becoming a lifer.

At this point, I could see the 3 rural McCain state Dems all surviving 2018 while 2 out of Brown, Baldwin and Casey go down.  I think McCaskill and Heller are toast pretty much regardless of what they do in the next 2 years.  Donnelly has just a bit more upside. 

[Xing]

Congrats, Senator Kramer.

[Skill and Chance]

Congrats, Senator Kramer.

Different dynamic in a 62% Trump state.

[Virginiá]

Congrats, Senator Kramer.

Different dynamic in a 62% Trump state.

Still, I wonder why she is so quick to do this given what we've seen so far from Trump's administration. She might want to hold off on the praises to see if he continues to slide in the polls. At this rate, it's not that unlikely that he becomes a weight around the necks of people who openly praised him, particularly those who say things like "he's like me!"

[Maxwell]

Hillary literally got mid 20% in this state. I'll still smash Heitkamp when she votes to frack her own backyard or whatever but this is just a sad bit of cuckholdry.

[publicunofficial]

My biggest worry with Heitkamp is the Native American vote. Crucial to Democratic victories in the state, and Hillary collapsed among Native Americans nationwide. I don't think they voted for Trump, but either undervoted or voted Green, due to the perception that Hillary did not care about them (Struggle to remember if Hillary mentioned opposing Keystone even once).

Heitkamp needs to walk a fine line between pleasing Native American voters, and also white voter said who support things like Keystone. I'm not sure it's a possible task. Bending towards one will annoy the other side.

[Maxwell]

My biggest worry with Heitkamp is the Native American vote. Crucial to Democratic victories in the state, and Hillary collapsed among Native Americans nationwide. I don't think they voted for Trump, but either undervoted or voted Green, due to the perception that Hillary did not care about them (Struggle to remember if Hillary mentioned opposing Keystone even once).

Heitkamp needs to walk a fine line between pleasing Native American voters, and also white voter said who support things like Keystone. I'm not sure it's a possible task. Bending towards one will annoy the other side.

this is why I think Heitkamp is the most at risk Democrat.

[publicunofficial]

My biggest worry with Heitkamp is the Native American vote. Crucial to Democratic victories in the state, and Hillary collapsed among Native Americans nationwide. I don't think they voted for Trump, but either undervoted or voted Green, due to the perception that Hillary did not care about them (Struggle to remember if Hillary mentioned opposing Keystone even once).

Heitkamp needs to walk a fine line between pleasing Native American voters, and also white voter said who support things like Keystone. I'm not sure it's a possible task. Bending towards one will annoy the other side.

I mean, Stein only got 1.1% in ND, so not much more than she did nationwide. Not sure about turnout, but I think she's still very popular among Natives in the state. And not being Donald Trump will probably be good enough for them. Just because we saw a similar thing happen in NV with Heck and to a lesser extent IL with Kirk doesn't mean we should now expect this to happen in red states too. Democrats aren't as dumb as Republicans when it comes to this.

I also think she's walking that fine line with comments like this one and her likely vote for Gorsuch. Of course I hope you're right, but I'm not exactly optimistic about this race. If you're perceived as a moderate Democrat in a Republican state, you'll be difficult to beat. Cramer could do it, but it will be an uphill battle.

Look at the counties. Hillary lost solid blue areas around Standing Rock, Native American heavy counties in Montana, Lumberton NC, etc.

The other factor I worry about are the oil workers who have flooded the western half of the state in the last few years. I imagine a lot of them aren't registered to vote in ND, but the ones that do will likely vote straight R and not even take the time to see how moderate the Democrat is.

I suspect that if you drove out to the reservations of North Dakota and asked about Heitkamp, you'd get a lot of anger about her Keystone support. And the white voters who DO appreciate the Keystone support may have already heavily trended R enough for it not to matter.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

ffs

FTR this is what the Senate map looked like when Bush cracked 60% in 2004:



2006:



Heitkamp is just a cuck.

[Maxwell]

ffs

FTR this is what the Senate map looked like when Bush cracked 60% in 2004:



2006:



Heitkamp is just a cuck.

yes because this is exactly like 10-12 years ago

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

ffs

FTR this is what the Senate map looked like when Bush cracked 60% in 2004:



2006:



Heitkamp is just a cuck.

yes because this is exactly like 10-12 years ago

My point is that you don't have to kiss this much ass to win reelection in a red state especially when the man whose ass you are kissing has an approval rating hovering 40%.  Dorgan was a very liberal senator for North Dakota as was Conrad (albeit less so than Dorgan).  The former only retired because Hoeven was unbeatable; Dorgan would probably still be in the Senate today had any other Republican ran for that seat.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I despise Heitkamp, but in a state like ND personality matters more than issues. Her strategy worked in 2012, and it could very well work in 2018. Republicans really need to take this race seriously. I am worried about her becoming a lifer.

At this point, I could see the 3 rural McCain state Dems all surviving 2018 while 2 out of Brown, Baldwin and Casey go down.  I think McCaskill and Heller are toast pretty much regardless of what they do in the next 2 years.  Donnelly has just a bit more upside. 

ROTFL

[Hindsight was 2020]

I despise Heitkamp, but in a state like ND personality matters more than issues. Her strategy worked in 2012, and it could very well work in 2018. Republicans really need to take this race seriously. I am worried about her becoming a lifer.

At this point, I could see the 3 rural McCain state Dems all surviving 2018 while 2 out of Brown, Baldwin and Casey go down.  I think McCaskill and Heller are toast pretty much regardless of what they do in the next 2 years.  Donnelly has just a bit more upside. 

ROTFL

Agreed lol

[Heisenberg]

Yeah, this idea that Brown and Baldwin are safe is pretty cringeworthy.

Agree. Both will be big GOP targets as both incumbents are polarizing progressives. I'd also say both governor races are at least Tilt R right now, so Republicans would be stupid not to target either.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Like you? Good reason for a primary challenge or she's going to lose badly.

[Blackacre]

Look at the counties. Hillary lost solid blue areas around Standing Rock, Native American heavy counties in Montana, Lumberton NC, etc.

The other factor I worry about are the oil workers who have flooded the western half of the state in the last few years. I imagine a lot of them aren't registered to vote in ND, but the ones that do will likely vote straight R and not even take the time to see how moderate the Democrat is.

I suspect that if you drove out to the reservations of North Dakota and asked about Heitkamp, you'd get a lot of anger about her Keystone support. And the white voters who DO appreciate the Keystone support may have already heavily trended R enough for it not to matter.

Fair enough, and I certainly hope you're right. I'm just worried about Senate races in Republican states in general. Especially in these small states where retail politics matters but also in MO, IN, etc. people vote for the candidate who better "relates" to them or who is more "moderate" (think of JBE, Kander, etc.). There's so many of these people in Montana. This is a big reason reason why Republicans aren't in better shape in the Senate. Someone like Phil Scott would never win a Senate race in VT, voters there aren't that dumb.

I don't think those voters are dumb. At least, that's a really unsatisfying conclusion to the mystery of asymmetrical split-ticket voting. And I may as well use a thread about Heitkamp to spill my own thoughts/ideas.

The first part, I think, is quantity. Among heavily partisan states, there are more small Republican states than small Democratic ones, which means there's more of an opportunity for ticket splitting at the Senatorial level that benefits the out-party in Republican states. We're going to need a definition of "small" and "heavily partisan" to work with to illustrate my point. I'm going to define "small" as a state with 5 electoral votes or fewer as of 2017, and "heavily partisan" as a state that has voted at least 5 points to the left/right of the nation in every presidential election since 2000. Therefore, the small/heavily Republican states are:

Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wyoming
Idaho
Alaska
Nebraska
West Virginia

For the small/heavily Democratic states, we have:

Vermont
Rhode Island
Delaware
Hawaii

There are literally twice as many small (non-atlas) red states as small blue states. Now, there are a couple of candidates for the latter category that debatably belong there, but don't fit my criteria. Connecticut, at 7 electoral votes, is too big, and thus the impact of retail politics dwindles. If I included Connecticut, I'd have to include Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Utah on the Republican side, which would inflate the ratio even more. (and I totally would if any of those had any interesting ticket splitting going on. Arkansas comes closest, but the margins that Blanche and Pryor were defeated by disqualify it) New Hampshire and Maine simply aren't partisan enough. Maine probably would have qualified before this year, but in 2016 it only voted to the left of the nation by less than 1%. New Hampshire voted to the right of the nation, and even though you believe it's gone for the Republicans, national politics plays a large role in the state, meaning it's not in the same category as Rhode Island or Montana. Finally, there's New Mexico, which doesn't qualify because of 2000 and 2004.

There are no Republican Senators from any of the 4 Small/Blue states, but 3 Democratic Senators from the Small/Red states. In other words, fewer than half of the small/red states have a Democratic Senator, (and each one has only one) and there are only half as many small/blue states as small/red ones. So sheer numbers play a part. When you have more examples of the perfect environment for a thing, the thing is more likely to happen to you.

You could argue that a second part is the sheer coincidence of the years senators are up for re-election, but the evidence for that is mixed. I'm going to come back to that in a second, though, because first I'd like to talk about the 9 states that don't have a Senator from the out-party. When was the last time somebody from the out-party won a Senate seat in that state?

South Dakota - 2008*
Wyoming - 1970
Idaho - 1974
Alaska - 2008, 1974
Nebraska - 2006*
Vermont - 2000*
Rhode Island - 2000
Delaware - 1994
Hawaii - 1970*

The asterisks indicate states where the last Senator from the out-party left by retiring instead of by losing re-election.

A few things to consider. Hawaii has never defeated an incumbent at the ballot box, making it something of a special case. Alaska never re-elected Begich, and Begich was only elected because of an opponent mired in scandal, so it can be safely disregarded. Delaware was a Republican state for a while, only voting Democratic at the Presidential level starting in 1992. Jim Jeffords was not a Republican for the entirety of his final term.

So four states opted to never elect a Senator from the out-party in the 21st century: Idaho, Wyoming, Delaware, and Hawaii. (and Hawaii is a special case) So you say that "Someone like Phil Scott would never win a Senate race in VT, voters there aren't that dumb." but the same can be said of Republican voters in Wyoming and Idaho. (and Alaska)

In addition, we have to consider the potential for a strong out-party candidate winning in one of the states where they haven't in a while. And by that I mean Mike Castle. He probably would have won his Senate race if he wasn't primaried, meaning that there is SOME appetite in the small/blue states for strong retail politics from the out-party. There, we might have one of our answers: the Democratic Party is more hospitable to moderates within their ranks than the Republicans are. Republicans primaried Mike Castle; Democrats didn't do the same to Manchin or Heitkamp or Tester.

But that can't be the only reason. Otherwise Lincoln Chafee might have gone through the same process that Jim Jeffords did. In fact, Chafee is a pretty good piece of evidence for your case. The voters there liked Chafee, but they wanted Democratic policies, so they ousted him. Again, though, I'm not satisfied by the answer that voters in the small/red states are simply dumb.

So let's return to the potential answer that it's the coincidence of the Senate classes that matter. All 3 D senators from small/red states are from Class 1, a strong D class. Meanwhile, Rhode Island, Alaska, Idaho, and South Dakota all shed their final out-party Senators during wave elections. (Vermont doesn't count, because Jeffords) In addition, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia all had 2 Democratic Senators at one point, but shed one of them during a strong partisan year. (2014, 2010, 2004, 2014, respectively. Maine would have fit here too, but well, Maine.)

However, that hypothesis cannot hold for three reasons. One, Manchin was first elected in a special election in 2010, a Republican Wave year. Two, they were all most recently elected in 2012, the year when Nebraska shed its last Democratic Senator. (and Nebraska Ds had a strong candidate, too) Three, they were last elected in 2012. You claim 2012 to be a wave, but it really isn't. A lot of wins for one party does not a wave make. A wave is when one party sweeps most of the competitive races because there is a nationwide effort to punish one party and reward the other. See 2006, 2008, 2010, 2014. We know this didn't happen in 2012 because Obama only beat Romney by 4 points. If there was a wave, it would have materialised in the top of the ticket. Also, Heitkamp, Tester, and Manchin all outpolled Obama, by 11.5 points, 7.1 points, and 25.1 points, respectively. Those three weren't carried on the backs of partisan winds to victory, if anything they fought partisan headwinds and won.

So we have as potential answers: there are more small/red states than small/blue states, making it more likely to happen in the former, and Democrats are more willing to nominate moderates to those seats.

There is another potential answer, one that I have been hesitant to address. It's possible that the voters in those small/red states simply don't care about Republican policies as much as they care about having Senators who they can relate to and would represent them well in Washington. If the voters of Montana aren't that invested in conservative policies, it makes sense that they would re-elect Tester. West Virginia is not a conservative state, but a coal state, and that idiosyncrasy helps Manchin. Under this answer, the voters are not dumb, but don't have the same priorities that you do. South Dakota is "heavily reliant on the federal government, to support both farms and roads and infrastructure to connect such an expansive state. That fact has led many to conclude, Mr. Card said, “'that we send our Democrats to bring home the bacon.'”(Source) Heitkamp supports Keystone XL and energy development, issues that the people of North Dakota care about. If those are their number one issues, and Heitkamp supports them, there's no reason not to at least give her a look.

The reason why I'm hesitant to settle on this as the answer is that it doesn't answer the question of why this doesn't happen in the small/blue states. But I might be able to tackle that too by looking at them one by one. In Delaware, as I already mentioned, there IS somebody who could have won that seat for the GOP, Mike Castle, but he didn't win the nomination. Vermont has two popular Senators; they wouldn't oust Leahy or Sanders for Phil Scott. However, Scott might actually win a Senate race there if either Sanders or Leahy resigned or died and the Dems didn't have a solid candidate of their own.

That leaves Rhode Island and Hawaii. It could be that neither state had the right combination of worthy retail politician Republican who bucks the national party on the one or two key issues voters in those states care about. Or it could simply be that Republican policies aren't compatible with retail politics. South Dakota sent its Democrats to help them get the government dollars they need. Rhode Island wouldn't sent a Republican to take away government funds.

So there are a lot of reasons. Calling small/red state voters dumb is probably disingenuous and absolutely not a satisfactory way to answer that question, but as you can tell from this wall of text, I don't have a 1000% sound answer myself, just a bunch of small factors that, when working together, allow this to happen.

[Skye]

ffs

FTR this is what the Senate map looked like when Bush cracked 60% in 2004:



2006:



Heitkamp is just a cuck.

Yeah, the blue dogs were still a thing in 2004. Not anymore.

When your party's presidential candidate gets less than 30% in the state, it's time to hit the panic button.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

ffs

FTR this is what the Senate map looked like when Bush cracked 60% in 2004:



2006:



Heitkamp is just a cuck.

Yeah, the blue dogs were still a thing in 2004. Not anymore.

When your party's presidential candidate gets less than 30% in the state, it's time to hit the panic button.

The Senator who won re-election in 2004 there warned us that sh**t was going to hit the fan within 10 years when he voted against repealing Glass Steagal. I think ND prefers Democrats who aren't Wall Street cronies.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

ffs

FTR this is what the Senate map looked like when Bush cracked 60% in 2004:



2006:



Heitkamp is just a cuck.

Yeah, the blue dogs were still a thing in 2004. Not anymore.

When your party's presidential candidate gets less than 30% in the state, it's time to hit the panic button.

Dorgan was not a Blue Dog.

[Blackacre]

@Spenstar: Those are all good points, and I know my comment sounded harsh, but if this was happening to you guys in Vermont, Hawaii, Delaware, etc. and cost you the Senate, you'd go crazy as well.

I feel that. As it is, I'm fascinated by asymmetrical senatorial ticket splitting, but if it was harming my party, I can see that fascination turning to frustration. I might even be singing a slightly different tune if Castle got elected or even if Kirk won reelex. Hell, Collins frustrates me to some degree.

[Blackacre]

This applies to both Democrats and Republicans, it just doesn't happen that often in blue states (the reasons you listed have something to do with it, but not everything). Montana isn't really a red state and there's a strong progressive base here, so that's something of a special case (although it still frustrates me that there are Republican-leaning Independents who vote for Tester).

Double posting because there's a bit more to reply to. (feel free to carry on this conversation in PM if you want)

On Montana: there is a progressive base, but it's not strong enough to push the state's politics at the Presidential level, given that, at its peak Democratic, it voted 9 points to the right of the nation. Every Democratic win in the state, from Tester to Bullock to Baucus, was achieved through Republican-leaning independents who ticket-split.

On there being additional factors in play: what's your theory on why this happens in Montana and North Dakota but not Rhode Island or Hawaii? I'm genuinely curious because again, this stuff fascinates me. Do you really think it's because the voters in North Dakota are dumber than the ones in Vermont? Or maybe it has to do with state party strength? Or recent memories with out-party Senators?

Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia had Baucus, Conrad, and Byrd, all from another time where the state parties were different and ticket-splitting was more universal. Maybe the fact that they stuck around for so long and linger in the states' memories make them more amiable to local Democrats than states like Idaho and Wyoming, or even states like Rhode Island. I don't know; I'd really like to hear your thoughts.