Talk Elections

Cramer - 53%
Heitkamp - 41%

LV, +/- 3.5%

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/north-dakota-poll-document-10-3

Yikes.

Wow. This one might actually be over.

Welp. Goodbye Senator Heitkamp, I guess.

Lol

yall are all gonna look like fools on election night... im loving it

btw... this has her at NEGATIVE approvals... lol k

Lean R at this point, despite ND polls being difficult, at some point you have to give weight to the fact that every single poll has Cramer up, and now sometimes by double digits.

Heitkamp is done if she OPPOSES Kavernaugh just as I predicted last week...

()

Yeah.

Lean R with an iffy degree of confidence, but polls are polls.

Kavernaugh does seem to have a HUGE IMPACT on that Race. Less so in Indiana (Donnelly) and Missouri (McCaskill).

And I bet Tester is going to collapse as well in Montana if he votes against him.

How many of those 34% ever even considered voting for Heidi? I highly doubt any of them did.

But Atlas told me Cramer was finished because of his "Akin comments." LOL.

This one's over, as is the battle for control of the Senate. The Democratic Party's utter incompetence and supreme ability to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory never ceases to amaze me. They just HAD to give the GOP a rallying cry with their stupid Kavanaugh posturing, didn't they?

lol pipe down boi, shes gonna win

It'll be one of those "moral victories" right? She may lose her senate seat but MORALLY, she won.

This might be a fun thread to bump in about a month.

I do actually think if Democrats had let it go and stopped these consistent calls for Investigations they would have fared better.

To laugh at the delusional people who are pretending Heitkamp still has a chance? Probably.

Mostly great news. This keeps Dems one more seat away from a majority, which they certainly don't deserve with their despicable handling of the Kavanaugh situation. However, I say only 'mostly' great because this means that there will be even less ideological diversity among the Democratic senators, as a leading red-state Democrat is knocked off.

Still, on the whole, good news.

Heitkamp was always going to be more reliant on cross-over voters than either Donnelly or McCaskill.   

Voters who base their vote on SCOTUS aren't ever going to be crossover voters.

Listen, if you’re a Democrat and this isn’t frightening, you’re being overly partisan. Polarization is devastating in a state that gave Clinton less than 30%.

According to some who have seen some internal polling on both sides, it is Cramer+3. He should be favored, but saying Heitkamp is done is an overreaction.

Source?

and ND unlike WV isnt a traditionally a Democratic State


Its been solidly Republican since 1920 and the only times it voted Democratic since then was 1932,1936 and 1964

Two polls showing Heitkamp down by double digits? Damn. Lean R?

La La Land

With all due respect, this kind of criticism regarding the courts is meaningless coming from Republicans. You guys have made it abundantly clear that you do not accept that Democrats have every right to pick judges when in power, just like Republicans do, and that apparently the federal judiciary is the sole property of the Republican Party, so why should Democrats do anything but impede your party's attempts to stack it?

This is what happens when you stand by as your party engages in scumbag partisan power plays. You ruin the idea of bipartisanship and make everything a "win-at-all-costs" battle. And you turn people like me, who just wanted each party to accept that if their opponents control the White House, they get to pick federal judges within reason, into jaded political activists who now want their party to pack the courts in a long-shot effort to teach the opposition that the world doesn't revolve around them.

Dammit where's my salt emoticon?

I actually wholly agree with you on this issue. The current (and relatively newfound) partisan rancor surrounding Supreme Court nominations is frankly disgusting, and BOTH sides  of the senate refuse to act as a mature, unified body determined to assess the qualifications of nominees.

That being said, this case with Kavanaugh is particularly sinister, as it not only involves one side trying to delay his confirmation but also involves, quite literally, the ruining of his life and that of his family with no substantiated evidence.

Let me remind everyone that at this point in the 2016 Wisconsin Senate election, most people thought that Ron Johnson was doomed against Russ Feingold. We all know how that turned out...

Ron Johnson was also in a much more purple state, and was never down double digits.

The fact you had to look to an April 2015 poll (the definition of pure meaninglessness) to find one showing him down double digits proves my point. Feingold was only up 3 in the RCP polling average by Election Day.

Safe R actually. Heitkamp might not lose by double digits, but unless Cramer is caught touching kids over the next month she's DOA.

Yeah, I am wrong. It was from an article from October of last year. It just showed up on my twitter feed.

Sorry about that.

I mean, unless you think Democrats recruited Ford to accuse Kavanaugh, it's not really fair to put it all on them. It's not our fault you guys picked someone with a history of heavy drinking and partying in HS/college who seemed to engage in questionable behavior with women.

And as dismayed as Republicans may be, there is an equally-if-not-bigger group of Democrats who for the life of them can't understand why you guys are clinging to Kavanaugh as if he's the only possible judge for the job, and would risk undermining the public's trust and confidence in the Supreme Court instead of just picking someone else and ramming through their confirmation before January. To me at least, it shows a stunning level of recklessness, which unfortunately isn't exactly new for the GOP, who have been undermining confidence in our elections almost every cycle, with fake claims of fraud, particularly in close elections (re: North Carolina).

It's nice that you don't agree with your party, truly, but the same can't be said for the vast majority of your partisan compatriots.

Triaging this race would be pointless since it’s so inexpensive, but yikes. Yet another atlas piece of conventional wisdom(Heitkamp is ultra safe because of Muh retail politics) disproven

Heitkamp had polls she was ahead in back in 2012, and no poll was as bad as Cramer +12 for her.

Let's just settle this:

https://www.strawpoll.me/16577236

Just like how Sen. Mourdock and Sen. Akin agreed that Cramer's "gaffe" would be devastating? lol

You've said this multiple times and it's not nearly as intelligent as you think it is. I'm seriously considering putting it in the Wulfric well.

Just because you don't like the result, doesn't mean it's garbage. I hate this result too, but it's not even an outlier at this point.

Peak IceSpear. Declaring an incumbent in a year that favored their party DOA. I remember when Anthony Brown was inevitable.

Actually, RCP indicated that two polls conducted in October 2016 (one in early October, another in mid October) had Feingold up double digits. The tightening of the polls only occurred during the final 2 weeks or so.

You better read what Hugh Hewitt tweeted half an hour ago. That he thinks the GOP will collapse if they don't get Kavernaugh through and I'm with him on that. There is a HUGE Difference clinging onto the Senate (which I think they will if he's confirmed) and losing 30 House Seats instead of 60+.

The reason I, and nearly all Republicans, both politicians and regular citizens, are so vehemently in favor of Kavanaugh's confirmation is that if his nomination is withdrawn, it sends a message that any future Supreme Court nominee (or really any official) can be taken down and have their lives ruined by unsubstantiated claims. That would be a travesty for justice, the rule of law, our politics, and would only encourage more of this* in the future.

* - A political side using unsubstantiated allegations as a political weapon to sink an otherwise supremely qualified person. I'm not saying that Ford may not have been, at some point, a victim of sexual assault.

One was from Gravis and the other was St. Nobert, some pollster I've never heard of. In any case, most of the polls around that time showed a single digit race. It also needs to be said, again, that Wisconsin is a purple state and North Dakota is ridiculously Republican. That's why I doubt Heitkamp will come back like Ron Johnson did.

Seriously. The "But the polls showed her down in 2012 as well" argument is ridiculous at this point. Polling was never that bad for her in 2012, and polling errors don’t always go in the same direction anyway.

Anyway, we’ll get another ND poll on Friday.

I am sorry, but you have to be one privileged bastard to believe Kavanaugh's life is going to be ruined in any other way.

Were you trying to be ironic?

Alright, well, fair enough.

But I still think Republicans are taking for granted the institutions to which this country depends on. Watergate, 2008 and a plethora of events between and after have seriously rattled the public's faith in our system, and at some point, partisan objectives need to take a backseat to what is best for the country. If that means someone like Kavanaugh has to settle for a lowly appellate court seat instead, it shouldn't be considered the end of the world.

Until then, we can just keep taking all of this for granted I suppose.

I'm very concerned what happens if they don't confirm him so yes I'm with you.

No, he is unfortunately dead serious.

Most North Dakota polls (including internals and those from prominent firms) should be treated with a grain of salt. The state has no voter registration and therefore no reliable voter file. Pollsters have no idea who they are interviewing (with regards to vote history, modeled turnout probability, and other voter file data that pollsters use to draw samples). The state really is a political consultant's nightmare.

That being said, even a faulty voter file (which was almost certainly used for this poll) would not cause a 12 point deficit. Heitkamp is probably trailing, though 12 points is probably not the truth.

FINALLY SOME COMMON SENSE!

I'm changing North Dakota from Lean to Likely R.

Uh, this is a Fox News poll.

He lied under oath about Rimarez’s story.

He said that that he didn’t hear about it until The New Yorker publish it, when he was already maneuvering behind the scene to to undercut the story.

Are you saying that you would support someone that lied under oath to be on the Supreme Court?

Obviously this result sucks but polling North Dakota is hard without voter registration. She’s down but not by double digits and NOT by 12 points. This poll also has her with a negative approval ratings, which is totally wrong.

If she votes against Kavanaugh, it will help her.

Pharos Research, of all groups, nailed the race twice in 2012, so ND can't be that hard to poll.

()

This is a painful poll. It'll be a darn shame if Heitkamp loses, shes a pretty good senator.

It'll at least give the Democrats in that state something to vote for.

It's a good point, but it's not going to come anywhere close to explaining away a double digit deficit, particularly when it has been corroborated by another poll.

If she votes against Kavanaugh this poll will be a reflection of election night.  

I too would buy that Heitkamp is down 12 if Republicans area actually making up 54% of voters in November lol.

The approval numbers for Trump in this poll are way higher than they actually are in the state.

I remember when MT was a "difficult state to poll". Apparently it no longer is, because no one ever makes that point in the threads discussing polls showing Tester ahead.

Oh f**k, maybe this seat really is gone.

She needs Republican Crossover Voters to pull this off in this State.

Its not. There is no way that Trumps approval numbers in the state are nearly as high as the poll suggests.

I dont get how shes down. She voted for Gorsuch

Maybe that's why.

Fox is a good, high quality pollster. Their editorial stance does not come into these polls - it is not like Rasmussen or Gravis or something.

Quite simply, it doesn't matter. That's old news and it's not like Cramer would be a swing vote or anything for Trump's nominees. Heitkamp truly was an accidental Senator. I'm still not even sure how she was able to win back in 2012.

MT does at least have voter registration. ND is a uniquely difficult state to poll, but that does not mean that multiple polls having Heitkamp down by double digits, including Fox (a very good pollster, usually) is in any way good news for Heitkamp. ND is a very deep red state, and there is a general tendency for deep red states to break Republican (and for deep red states to break Democratic). To some extent that may vary in a good year for one side or another, but there are limits to what is possible, and by even being competitive in the first place, Heitkamp is straining them.

oh great.. you are on this bandwagon as well...?

SCOTUS votes make little impact in the election.

This isn't good news for Heitkamp, but anybody declaring her DOA is being extremely reactionary. ND polling is notoriously difficult and we really don't have a large enough body of polls yet to draw solid conclusions. Heitkamp supposedly has a serious ad blitz coming out soon so let's see how things go and stop making stupid claims. Tossup -> Lean R

This forum is going to be a mess on November 7th, no matter who wins. This race can definitely be moved to at least Lean R, though we'll see what polls say in a few weeks. Republicans shouldn't get too giddy, since the same pollster showed MO/IN as being Toss-Ups at best for Republicans, so it's not like this poll alone implies anything other than Heitkamp being in a enormous trouble. She could be like the Kirk of this cycle, in that she loses by a lot, while most other incumbents do decently.

Just personal wishes, not backed up with any fact?

()

()

This Leans R - at this point, Dems have to hope to overperform either here, TN, or TX to take the chamber.

Takeover of the House is almost certain. Takeover of the Senate is now looking somewhat unlikely. The other Dem incumbents should all win (McCaskill and Donnelly have been gaining some ground over the last month even as Heitkamp has lost ground), but without holding here or an upset Bredesen/Beto win, it won't be enough.

Sure, Heitkamp could outperform the polls again (she'd still lose even if she did.) She could also underperform them and get Blanched.

But this is about as good of an argument as Republicans insisting that there will be a red wave because of MUH 2016.

I mean, the RCP average right now is Cramer+8.7. Heitkamp won in 2012 by 0.9 points and the RCP average going into Election Day was 5.7. So even if you assume the same exact swing in her favor ala 2012 she’d still lose by 2.

Not looking good, and I wouldn't bet on a Heitkamp victory, but giving up, especially this early, is stupid.


You know what else is particularly sinister? Rape. I look forward to your party collapsing even more among women because of this attitude.

Guys, I just wanted to post the TRUMAN/DEWEY image because in 4 pages of yakking, nobody was clever enough to do so.

Tester has got to be nervous right now with rural trends.

It seems that rural Democrats have mainly recovered in the upper Midwest. But once you leave those borders it gets ugly.

Not saying ND is anything like Montana but Heitkamp's position has only gotten worse.

Because if nominating and electing the pussygrabber and strongly backing Kavanaugh didn't cause them to collapse among women, I'm sure a post from an Atlas Forum user will. ::)

My bad :P

Montana is actually not that much of a "rural" state, and that is part of the reason why Dems do comparatively well there.

Montana is substantially less "rural" than North Dakota. By that, I mean that the land use in MT is much more oriented towards ranching as opposed to farming (which takes up a greater amount of land with less population, so although ranchers are heavily Republican, you don't get many votes from them), and also a large part of Montana (particularly in the west of MT, which is the more Dem part) is simply uninhabited mountainous wilderness. Montana also has more small cities such as Missoula, Billings, Bozeman, etc than does North Dakota.

This is similarly why Democrats do comparatively well in other states in the Mountain west. Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc all have large landmasses, but they are not "rural" in the same sense that, say Nebraska or Missouri outside of St. Louis and KC are rural. That is true to a lesser extent of Montana than of those states, but it still quite significantly differentiates Montana from states and areas that are "rural" further east.

Good lord....You guys have all 3 branches of government and control of 34 states and you still keep whining.

North Dakotans are disgusting vermin if they vote for this rape apologist xenophobic Cramer. Vomit inducing!

I think Cramer wins by 4-6 in the end, but umm, lemme just say that the most Heitkamp ever trailed in a poll in 2012 was by 10.

No kidding. How dare we argue it's not accpetable to confirm a rapist to the court?

Why doesn't Heitkamp call Kevin out on being a  rape apologist and supporting tariffs that will send us into a gigantic economic crash? Stop playing Nice! Then she'll win!

Heidi landed some real blows against Berg in 2012, not really the case this time around with Cramer so far and his gaffes have been way beyond anything Berg said or did. Kind of just a reflection of how much more red and partisan the state has become.

That said this seems a bit optimistic for Cramer,  the race is probably closer to a 5-6% lead for Cramer and it is trending toward him.

I'm not, I'm simply saying we shouldn't let unsubstantiated allegations ruin someone's prospects for a government position.

Obviously a rapist shouldn't be confirmed to the court. The problem is that people on the left, including you, take that as a given fact, when it is, in fact, not.

Tester definitely has some advantages in his reelection bid that Heitkamp lacks (Libertarian candidate on the ballot, Montana's relatively high Democratic floor, a fired up #resistance base in places like Missoula and Bozeman that has no reason not to enthusiastically support him, support from veterans, Rosendale being a weaker candidate than Cramer, the NRSC not prioritizing Montana early enough and allowing Tester to define Rosendale early and outspend/outraise/out-advertise him by a lot, the MT GOP being less competent/organized than the ND GOP, etc.), but obviously you’re right that Tester isn’t going to win easily if Heitkamp’s losing by double digits. Right now I’d say Tester wins by 3, but if Republicans are having a better than expected night, a Rosendale win is very much possible.

Lmao stop acting like you'd ever accept the notion that he's a rapist or attempted to rape Ford. Even with the most convincing evidence you'd still deny deny deny.

If it were a Democrat nominating a Democrat to the Court and he was facing these allegations, you'd probably suddenly believe them at face value.

Is this a troll or...? Because it seems you're implying that standing up to a partisan, vicious accused rapist is somehow incompetent and somehow ruined the re-election of a woman who was already 10 points behind. Do you like Kavanaugh or something?

You seem to be posting in multiple threads on how Democrats ruined their chances at the Senate because of this and how stupid they are and how foolish they are due to their actions with Kavanaugh...

A.) The Senate was always an uphill battle. If you blab on about the Dems snatching defeat from the jaws of victory you imply they were well positioned for a Senate retake. Which has never been likely according to most pundits and experts.

B.) Heitkamp was always vulnerable.

C.) The Cramer +10 poll was before the hearings

C.2) Manchin is still up, McCaskill is still in a tied race. Donnelly is still up. Nelson is still slightly favored. If Senate Dems are so stupid for opposing an accused rapist, and if they so snatched defeat from the jaws of victory (even though the senate was never going to be retaken in all likelihood, so revisionism on your part), then why aren't all the red state dems multiple points behind? Why is Blackburn still under 50? Why is Nelson not 2 points behind again?

D.) You're being revisionist and your gloating is hilarious considering how flimsy your assertions are.

E.) Pick a better hill to die on

In my experience Montana has actually been fairly easy to poll. The state has high landline connectivity, good regional distribution, fairly stable turnout differentials, and one of the best-maintained voter files in the country.

Dismiss the lack of a real voter file if you so please to fit your personal analysis, it doesn't change the fact that they are critical to polling.

It might be the right thing to do morally (not that it really matters since he's going to be confirmed regardless), but it is objectively the wrong thing to do politically if your goal is to win in deeply Republican states.

And she wasn't already down 10. The polls before Kavanaugh had her down 4-5.

Anyway, there's already a sexually assaulting pussygrabber in the White House. You get the government you deserve. It's what the American people wanted and voted for after all. I don't see how a potential sex criminal being on the SCOTUS would further disgrace our country any more than it already is disgraced.

I was referring to that attitude which is prevalent among Republican leaders. I'm not trying to delude ThatConservativeGuy into thinking he is influential or something.

Because the most Trump can do damage to this country is capped at 8 years. Kavanaugh being empowered by a Conservative court (with Clarence Thomas) can be horrific and can last for decades, with any effects lasting even longer. What if RBG dies and Trump appoints a far-right wing candidate? What then? Should we just roll over and allow them to ascend to the supreme court to protect a bunch of red-state dems, even if it means putting people into a lifetime position where they can repeal numerous laws protecting women, LGBTQ, and minorities?

Yeah, but that's the case regardless of whether or not Kavanaugh is a sex criminal or even whether he gets confirmed or not. Even if there's a miracle and he gets voted down, Trump will just replace him with a less controversial conservative who will vote the same way on everything and they'll clear the Senate easily. If Democrats actually held the majority in the Senate (or had any power whatsoever to stop a SCOTUS appointment) I'd agree with you, but making a battle you're doomed to lose into Waterloo while simultaneously trying to win deep red states in the election that's a month away seems like a lose/lose situation to me.

How about we see some of that convincing evidence first, and then we'll see where I stand? :]

I already know where you'll stand since I've known many people like you :), considering you have an ugly ass signature of him, I know you will always see a belligerent drunken right-winger as a victim no matter what.

Cramer having the edge so far, leaning R. There is still a little over a month before Election Day and things can change, we'll see what polls continue to show over the next few weeks.

I really hate this country sometimes.

inb4 dont like it then move to communism

Oh I wasn't aware that I'm not an individual, but rather a stereotype that you can fit into whatever box satisfies you. You know all there is to know about me, I suppose. Thanks for letting me know.

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."


#yolo
#2deep4me

Most of America hates themselves nowadays anyway. Or at the very least, other people.

The allegations against Kavanaugh are very substantiated. We already have the level of evidence that would be needed to convict him in a court of law. There is no reasonable doubt left.

TCG needs to stop acting as if rape is not a crime.

I became a straight-up misanthrope around mid-2016.  It's hard to reconcile with some of my moral/religious views, but I'd be lying to myself if I said I "loved humanity."

The problem with American democracy is the voters

With this reply, this thread now has the most replies of any thread on this board.

Tbh a GOP Senate is bearable if Democrats at least gain the House. Just to have that would be much better than right now.

Just wait until a Rosendale +1/2 poll comes out somewhere. It will make this thread look like a harmonious interaction between calm and sensible Atlas posters.

Oddly enough Indiana seems to be the most popular, as 3 of the top 6 are Indiana threads. Who would've thought?

I don't know if I'd call it useless, as Democrats will use it to turn over every single rock in the Trump administration, and if we remember Clinton, that can eventually cause serious problems, but I do get what you're saying. The Senate is crucial for having any input in the staffing of the executive and judicial branches between at least now - 2021. If Democrats want to blunt the impact of Trump/McConnell stealing a ton of judicial vacancies for Trump to fill, they need the Senate to do that.

Not Missouri or Florida, lol? Color me surprised.

The thread with the most posts will definitely be a Missouri thread bumped after the election, regardless of the result.

The senate was viewed as a long shot since the beginning and Heidi has been viewed as the most vulnerable dem for weeks now so why is everyone jumping off the bridge?

64% of likely voters approve of Donald Trump? Sounds a little off to me. 

The Senate was viewed as a long shot, but if Heidi is screwed it goes from a long shot to a ridiculously long shot. Also, many delusional Dem hacks here didn't (still don't?) even view the Senate as a long shot at all, lol.

She was viewed as the most vulnerable, but nobody expected her to be trailing by anywhere near this much.

The problem I have with the argument that "she over-performed and won in 2012," aside from the folly of basing a prediction on an event you can't actually predict, is that she just barely won in 2012. It could have easily went the other way. So even if she is down by a lot right now and she does end up over-performing, maybe this time it won't be enough.

Like another user said already, after a certain point, I can't deny what the data says. Maybe she does win in the end, but for right now, she looks like she is on track to lose.

RIP Heidi. She was always one of my faves. Such a cool gal. Will be dearly missed.

Yeah, I'll be sad to see her go. But honestly, she was an accidental senator from the start and was never supposed to win to begin with, so I guess we should just be happy we got her for 6 years. :(

The battle for the senate is over. The comments didn’t hurt him at all. Bredesen and O’Rourke are slipping away and Hyde-Smith will easily make it to the runoff.

We love you Senator Heitkamp! I know at least I will still be very proud of you if you go down swinging.

Hopefully Joe Biden puts her in his administration :(

Not to nitpick, but is Texas truly slipping away? The most recent polls, even excluding that Junkie Reuters one, shows him catching up or even tide slash slightly ahead of Cruz. It would still be an upset for him to win oh, sure, but I'm not aware of any recent developments indicating the momentum has shifted back to Cruz.

Bredesen was down 5 in that recent Fox poll, which is probably enough to say the momentum has shifted away from him, just as everyone here is predicted would like eventually happen.

Bredesen and Sinema made mistakes of saying they wouldn't support Schumer as Leader and Bredesen said nice things about Kavanaugh. They didn't learn lesson of Grimes🤥

Haha, definitely not "everyone." :P

And that she stuck to her principles in the end.

Ouch. The Democrats can't really afford any losses if they want to take the Senate because TX and TN are really fool's gold.

Okay, mostly everyone. ;)

Aren’t you the guy harping on about the giant Democratic enthusiasm edge and constantly predicting a massive D tsunami? Because that’s inconsistent with this comment.

I never was

This is North Dakota we're talking about.

Its probably 54% at most in North Dakota.

Donald Trump got 63% in ND. Nationally he got 46%. His approval right now is at 42%. So logically he should be around 59%, +/- a few points. Not unreasonable at all.

Actually he's at 44% if you only look at RV/LV polls (which are the only ones that matter.)

But yeah, a few of our posters seem to have a hard time comprehending (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=303006.msg6447936#msg6447936) this stuff. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=303002.msg6447927#msg6447927) Math is hard and all. If you just compare his current approval to his vote share it's not hard to ballpark what his current approval in any given state would be. It's not perfect obviously since uniform swing isn't a thing, but it's a lot more reliable than the Bernie Math stuff going around here. "Trump's approval should be lower because that's what my FEELS tell me!"