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

[South Dakota Democrat]

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.

[Ebsy]

Heitkamp was the underdog in 2012 as well.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Heitkamp was the underdog in 2012 as well.

True, that's why I said I wasn't counting her out.  That doesn't mean she'll beat the odds twice, though, either.

[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!

[South Dakota Democrat]

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!

Thanks for the welcome!

[Beet]

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.

[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.

[Former Kentuckian]

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.

Haven't we been seeing state legislative and other elections having swings in rural areas? For example in my state, Democrat Kelly Smith lost in her special election in a rural area but saw a swing in her direction. Also, let's not pretend that North Dakota is one giant field and everyone lives miles apart. Yeah, it's rural but it does have urban areas where a significant amount of the population lives and these were where Heidi did so well last time. Fargo alone holds nearly 20% of the state's population while its county (Cass County) holds nearly a quarter of the population. Burleigh County, home of Bismarck, has nearly 100,000 people in a state that only has 700,000.

[Atlas Force]

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.

Cory Gardner

Gardner doesn't even fit in with these other guys. He's not a moderate at all, he only won because it was 2014 and his opponent was Mark Uterus, and he still couldn't break 50%.

[Beet]

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.

Which is why Jon Tester and Joe Manchin are losing in the polls right now, right? Democrats have been doing well in a lot of rural districts in both special elections and polling this year (the Midwest in particular), and it’s foolish to assume that the composition of the electorate turning out this year will resemble the composition of the 2016 electorate (when you had a uniquely bad fit for the state at the top of the ticket). If anything, it will be much more Democratic-friendly.

Charisma, personal interactions and the advantage of incumbency are far more likely to be deciding factors in states like Montana and North Dakota than the candidates' voting records or whatever. Scoff at us using the term "retail politics" as much as you want, but there’s a reason why people like Tester keep winning reelection despite being fairly liberal, and you’re kidding yourself if you think appearance and manner have nothing to do with it. People love to point out how Democratic-fiendly Montana is down-ballot, but the Dakotas also have a long history of electing Democrats to the Senate.

MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group
DATE: July 18, 2016
RE: Recent Indiana Statewide Survey

The results of our July 12-14 survey conducted among 602 likely voters (+4.1%) shows that a sizeable majority of Hoosiers look positively on Evan Bayh’s past service as their Senator and support him in his comeback bid by an overwhelming 21-point margin.

[Young Conservative]

[/quote]

MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group
DATE: July 18, 2016
RE: Recent Indiana Statewide Survey

The results of our July 12-14 survey conducted among 602 likely voters (+4.1%) shows that a sizeable majority of Hoosiers look positively on Evan Bayh’s past service as their Senator and support him in his comeback bid by an overwhelming 21-point margin.
[/quote]

hehe

[Antonio the Sixth]

lol @ people still assuming 2012-2016 trends are permanent when most elections we've had so far show the opposite

[The Other Castro]

The fault really belongs to anyone who expects Beet to use sound logic and relevant facts in arguments.

[America Needs R'hllor]

there are still 4 lefty justices who will absolutely ignore the clear reading of what the constitution says to advance their agenda.

Why are conservatives always claiming the mantle of this? You honestly believe that conservatives don't have their own 'activist judges' as well? As if your judges aren't getting overly creative with the 1st amendment justifications these days?

This sounds as silly to me as how apparently conservatives are the only true patriots (yet somehow elected Donald Trump). Or conservatives are the real Americans. Not only do they disagree with liberals, but liberals aren't even real. They make up rules, legislate from the bench and are evil unpatriotic commies.

Delegitimizing the left as a political force is a well-known far-right strategy, used throughout the word. Netanyahu, for example, successfully did it, taking the Israeli democracy one step closer to the brim by working very hard to make the left completely illegitimate in the eyes of many, if not most, Israelis.

[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.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

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.

So what, he's still a dem

[Nathan Towne]

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

[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?

[Ferguson97]

North Dakota is the seat I'm the most pessimistic about, tbh.

[Nathan Towne]

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.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

2016. TRENDS. ARE. NOT. PERMANENT.

[Nathan Towne]

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.

We have information on polling by State from 2017 and 2018 which is accumulated here:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/739602/president-trump-approval-rating-by-state/
You can take a look for yourself. Trump's approval rating has improved across the entire country since the beginning of April.

Elections in North Dakota for national seats have been becoming less competitive over the last decade or so. This is clearly borne out by elections. So, I wouldn't be especially optimistic if I were you. Of course, I do not take the election for granted, but I do think that Cramer has a clear edge.

As far as your fourth point is concerned, I am not sure what you mean when you highlight Senators who you characterize as having voted "against their States interest" in the past. That is a subjective statement. What matters is how the voters feel about your voting patterns.

[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.

[MAINEiac4434]

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.

Conor Lamb doesn't exist bro