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

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think that by running about a million dollars worth of anti-Kavanaugh ads in North Dakota, it could be enough to move the polls back to a Heitkamp lead, even if one was to believe that the Cramer + 12 poll was legit.

It makes no difference. Atlas pretends it matters to explain away what it dont know. The goalposts of why someone wins or loses is constantly moving on this site

If it makes no difference, then why did Conservative groups decide to spend millions of dollars on pro-Kavanaugh ads, with a heavy focus on North Dakota.

Because they're morons and political ads are money pits that just funnel money to consultants. The average voter could care less about the SCOTUS. If Heidi loses then she was always going to lose and not because of a SCOTUS vote that only highly partisan and already motivated voters care about

Wrong


People care because of all the media attention of it

[Senator Incitatus]

Goodness, this thread of comments is ridiculous. There is no electoral silver lining. Her campaign is in bad shape.

[2016]

Heitkamp is finished and she knows it



The other Poll who had Cramer up 10 want Kavernaugh confirmed something like 60-27.

From the SRA Poll that had Cramer up 10

So 34% of highly partisan and already motivated Cramer voters claimed it would of made them less likely to vote for someone they werent going to vote for anyway.

Noted

https://twitter.com/politicoalex/status/1047934249930772480

Either the race is completely over, or the NRCC is making another really stupid decision by forfeiting the entirety of the airwaves.

No...its just idiot strategists think a SCOTUS vote matters in a country where only 1% can name all 9 Justices

Well, Scott Brown didn't vote for Elena Kagan to be Associate SCOTUS Justice when he was in the Senate and that's why he lost in the end in 2012 and you keep telling us a SCOTUS Vote doesn't matter. Give me a break!

[ON Progressive]

Heitkamp is finished and she knows it



The other Poll who had Cramer up 10 want Kavernaugh confirmed something like 60-27.

From the SRA Poll that had Cramer up 10

So 34% of highly partisan and already motivated Cramer voters claimed it would of made them less likely to vote for someone they werent going to vote for anyway.

Noted

https://twitter.com/politicoalex/status/1047934249930772480

Either the race is completely over, or the NRCC is making another really stupid decision by forfeiting the entirety of the airwaves.

No...its just idiot strategists think a SCOTUS vote matters in a country where only 1% can name all 9 Justices

Well, Scott Brown didn't vote for Elena Kagan to be Associate SCOTUS Justice when he was in the Senate and that's why he lost in the end in 2012 and you keep telling us a SCOTUS Vote doesn't matter. Give me a break!

Scott Brown wouldn’t have won if he voted for Kagan LMAO. He lost because he was a Republican running in a good Dem year in Massachusetts.

[junior chįmp]

I think that by running about a million dollars worth of anti-Kavanaugh ads in North Dakota, it could be enough to move the polls back to a Heitkamp lead, even if one was to believe that the Cramer + 12 poll was legit.

It makes no difference. Atlas pretends it matters to explain away what it dont know. The goalposts of why someone wins or loses is constantly moving on this site

If it makes no difference, then why did Conservative groups decide to spend millions of dollars on pro-Kavanaugh ads, with a heavy focus on North Dakota.

Because they're morons and political ads are money pits that just funnel money to consultants. The average voter could care less about the SCOTUS. If Heidi loses then she was always going to lose and not because of a SCOTUS vote that only highly partisan and already motivated voters care about

Wrong


People care because of all the media attention of it

What does this even mean. The vast majority of voters are indifferent to this whole fiasco. They are as indifferent to this as they were about the Iraq War being a lie, the budget deficits, the bailouts, Obama's Rev Wright scandal, Trump's pussy grabbing tape and his literally thousands of other scandals.

The American electorate is not some intensely interested group of people regardless if the media talks about it. Most just shrug while people on this site keep insisting it matters

[HAnnA MArin County]

A Democrat with a spine. Very refreshing to see!

[Zaybay]

Heitkamp is finished and she knows it



The other Poll who had Cramer up 10 want Kavernaugh confirmed something like 60-27.

From the SRA Poll that had Cramer up 10

So 34% of highly partisan and already motivated Cramer voters claimed it would of made them less likely to vote for someone they werent going to vote for anyway.

Noted

https://twitter.com/politicoalex/status/1047934249930772480

Either the race is completely over, or the NRCC is making another really stupid decision by forfeiting the entirety of the airwaves.

No...its just idiot strategists think a SCOTUS vote matters in a country where only 1% can name all 9 Justices

Well, Scott Brown didn't vote for Elena Kagan to be Associate SCOTUS Justice when he was in the Senate and that's why he lost in the end in 2012 and you keep telling us a SCOTUS Vote doesn't matter. Give me a break!

As an MA voter, I can clarify that Elena Kagan wasnt a factor in the MA senate race. A much larger factor was the fact that Brown had a pickup truck, TBH.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think that by running about a million dollars worth of anti-Kavanaugh ads in North Dakota, it could be enough to move the polls back to a Heitkamp lead, even if one was to believe that the Cramer + 12 poll was legit.

It makes no difference. Atlas pretends it matters to explain away what it dont know. The goalposts of why someone wins or loses is constantly moving on this site

If it makes no difference, then why did Conservative groups decide to spend millions of dollars on pro-Kavanaugh ads, with a heavy focus on North Dakota.

Because they're morons and political ads are money pits that just funnel money to consultants. The average voter could care less about the SCOTUS. If Heidi loses then she was always going to lose and not because of a SCOTUS vote that only highly partisan and already motivated voters care about

Wrong


People care because of all the media attention of it

What does this even mean. The vast majority of voters are indifferent to this whole fiasco. They are as indifferent to this as they were about the Iraq War being a lie, the budget deficits, the bailouts, Obama's Rev Wright scandal, Trump's pussy grabbing tape and his literally thousands of other scandals.

The American electorate is not some intensely interested group of people regardless if the media talks about it. Most just shrug while people on this site keep insisting it matters

Most voters supported it in 2004 according to CNN exit polls


and the Bailouts lmao at the fact people didn't get mad, they are one major reason why we got Tea Party and Occupy Movements . Comparing personal scandals to Supreme Court is also lol

[junior chįmp]

Well, Scott Brown didn't vote for Elena Kagan to be Associate SCOTUS Justice when he was in the Senate and that's why he lost in the end in 2012 and you keep telling us a SCOTUS Vote doesn't matter. Give me a break!

Yes...who can forget when Kent Conrad was thrown out of office for Ginsburg and Breyer lmao

[junior chįmp]

I think that by running about a million dollars worth of anti-Kavanaugh ads in North Dakota, it could be enough to move the polls back to a Heitkamp lead, even if one was to believe that the Cramer + 12 poll was legit.

It makes no difference. Atlas pretends it matters to explain away what it dont know. The goalposts of why someone wins or loses is constantly moving on this site

If it makes no difference, then why did Conservative groups decide to spend millions of dollars on pro-Kavanaugh ads, with a heavy focus on North Dakota.

Because they're morons and political ads are money pits that just funnel money to consultants. The average voter could care less about the SCOTUS. If Heidi loses then she was always going to lose and not because of a SCOTUS vote that only highly partisan and already motivated voters care about

Wrong


People care because of all the media attention of it

What does this even mean. The vast majority of voters are indifferent to this whole fiasco. They are as indifferent to this as they were about the Iraq War being a lie, the budget deficits, the bailouts, Obama's Rev Wright scandal, Trump's pussy grabbing tape and his literally thousands of other scandals.

The American electorate is not some intensely interested group of people regardless if the media talks about it. Most just shrug while people on this site keep insisting it matters

Most voters supported it in 2004 according to CNN exit polls


and the Bailouts lmao at the fact people didn't get mad, they are one major reason why we got Tea Party and Occupy Movements . Comparing personal scandals to Supreme Court is also lol

Correlation does not equal causation. Behind every seeming election victory was a favorable enviorment that dictated the election victory and not a bunch of issues nobody was paying attention to except political nerds. But people prefer bogus narratives to the boring reality

[Former Kentuckian]

I guess I need to ignore North Dakota threads until election day. You all are stressing me out.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think that by running about a million dollars worth of anti-Kavanaugh ads in North Dakota, it could be enough to move the polls back to a Heitkamp lead, even if one was to believe that the Cramer + 12 poll was legit.

It makes no difference. Atlas pretends it matters to explain away what it dont know. The goalposts of why someone wins or loses is constantly moving on this site

If it makes no difference, then why did Conservative groups decide to spend millions of dollars on pro-Kavanaugh ads, with a heavy focus on North Dakota.

Because they're morons and political ads are money pits that just funnel money to consultants. The average voter could care less about the SCOTUS. If Heidi loses then she was always going to lose and not because of a SCOTUS vote that only highly partisan and already motivated voters care about

Wrong


People care because of all the media attention of it

What does this even mean. The vast majority of voters are indifferent to this whole fiasco. They are as indifferent to this as they were about the Iraq War being a lie, the budget deficits, the bailouts, Obama's Rev Wright scandal, Trump's pussy grabbing tape and his literally thousands of other scandals.

The American electorate is not some intensely interested group of people regardless if the media talks about it. Most just shrug while people on this site keep insisting it matters

Most voters supported it in 2004 according to CNN exit polls


and the Bailouts lmao at the fact people didn't get mad, they are one major reason why we got Tea Party and Occupy Movements . Comparing personal scandals to Supreme Court is also lol

Correlation does not equal causation. Behind every seeming election victory was a favorable enviorment that dictated the election victory and not a bunch of issues nobody was paying attention to except political nerds. But people prefer bogus narratives to the boring reality

The natural environment came from the issues of the day not magic

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Heitkamp is losing because it's a Trump + 36 state where she's facing a partial incumbent who won by nearly 50 in 2016.

It's really not that complicated folks. Don't bring up Fat Pat, the New Jersey carpetbagger who lives in DC and won by only 10 in 2016.

[Mr. Smith]

What, did you expect her to go all Max Cleland on her votes? Look where that got him?

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

What, did you expect her to go all Max Cleland on her votes? Look where that got him?

Funny thing is, that was the last race in recent history where an incumbent of the out-of power party lost re-election in a midterm year. Looks like Heitkamp will join that unfortunate group

[junior chįmp]

The natural environment came from the issues of the day not magic

No it doesnt. Not BS issues like the SCOTUS.

Heitkamp hasnt led a poll since what February and now Atlas is claiming shes finished because of Kavanaugh. Hmmm....maybe just maybe...she was always going to lose and it had nothing to with Kavanaugh.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The natural environment came from the issues of the day not magic

No it doesnt. Not BS issues like the SCOTUS.

Heitkamp hasnt led a poll since what February and now Atlas is claiming shes finished because of Kavanaugh. Hmmm....maybe just maybe...she was always going to lose and it had nothing to with Kavanaugh.

Yah she was gonna lose by 3-4 now its gonna by 8-10

Thats a pretty big difference

[junior chįmp]

The natural environment came from the issues of the day not magic

No it doesnt. Not BS issues like the SCOTUS.

Heitkamp hasnt led a poll since what February and now Atlas is claiming shes finished because of Kavanaugh. Hmmm....maybe just maybe...she was always going to lose and it had nothing to with Kavanaugh.

Yah she was gonna lose by 3-4 now its gonna by 8-10

Thats a pretty big difference

Lol...keep moving the goalposts. It makes ZERO difference in the end

[Rhenna]

She's still going to win.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

She's still going to win.

I wish but it looks bad....

[2016]

You gotta love this on CNN...prolly liar Rosen going against intelligent Rick Santorum.

[Fargobison]

The plan appears to be that she will vote against Kavanaugh, and run a bunch of anti-Kavanaugh ads statewide to make that the popular position.

There isn't enough money in the world that is going to make that a popular position in ND. Looks like Heidi wants to go out her way, which is respectable.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

You gotta love this on CNN...prolly liar Rosen going against intelligent Rick Santorum.

Right wing religious fanatic Santorum intelligent??? I can't even!

[Mr. Smith]

What, did you expect her to go all Max Cleland on her votes? Look where that got him?

Funny thing is, that was the last race in recent history where an incumbent of the out-of power party lost re-election in a midterm year. Looks like Heitkamp will join that unfortunate group

2002 doesn't count, Bush had artificially high approvals at that point. In many ways 2002 was more Presidential than 2000 in outcome by modern standards. In which case, the outlier was Mark Pryor.

A better example would be 1998, when Indiana flipped D while the GOP picked up lots of places.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

What, did you expect her to go all Max Cleland on her votes? Look where that got him?

Funny thing is, that was the last race in recent history where an incumbent of the out-of power party lost re-election in a midterm year. Looks like Heitkamp will join that unfortunate group

2002 doesn't count, Bush had artificially high approvals at that point. In many ways 2002 was more Presidential than 2000 in outcome by modern standards. In which case, the outlier was Mark Pryor.

A better example would be 1998, when Indiana flipped D while the GOP picked up lots of places.

Yeah but Dan Coats retired, so there was no incumbent. D'Amato losing to Schumer and Faircloth losing to Edwards are better examples.