ND DFM Research: Heitkamp +18 in East Cities (Fargo, West Fargo, Grand Forks)

[Virginiá]

What does Heidi need to get in these areas to win?

[Virginiá]

What does Heidi need to get in these areas to win?

Well, if she barely won with 14% in 2012, I'd say 15% this time, due to growth in the Western part of the state. Fargo has grown, too, so an additonial one point is probably appropriate.

An interactive precinct map of the 2012 ND Senate race is available on my website here:
https://www.thecinyc.com/2012-nd-senate-ge

(or here, if you're on a mobile device: https://www.thecinyc.com/nd-sen-ge-2012)

Oh, cool. Thanks for the link. I presume that's your site? Looks data rich!

So to the degree that which we can extrapolate these numbers, this is probably good news for her?

[Virginiá]

Yes, it's my site.

Hard to say. If all else remains the same in the state, yes, it's good news for Heitkamp. But if Western North Dakota, which has rapidly grown since 2012, tilts even more R than in 2012, even D+17 might not be enough.

The only thing I can definitively say is that assuming the pollster is correct that the areas polled were D+14 last time, it's not consistent with a double-digit Heitkamp loss.

The fact that the (presumably D internal) pollster keeps on releasing favorable regional crosstabs instead of the topline should tell us that Heitkamp is behind statewide by something.

Thanks!

Statistically speaking, losing a bunch of incumbents this cycle was be highly unusual for the out party in a midterm wave, but holding every single seat and picking up seats too would also be somewhat even if less unusual. Heitkamp could very well be one of if not the only incumbent that Democrats lose. Still though, it would be nice if we could get some more polls (of the entire state).

[Virginiá]

How?  The GOP gained nothing in 2006, and Dems gained nothing in 2010 and 2014?  If anything these days, the out-party losing a seat to the in-party is the unusual thing.

I'd have to look at the exact maps at the time, but 2006 wasn't as top-heavy for Democrats. Now they hold a lot of seats and a number of which are in heavily Republican states. Just the sheer number of Democratic seats up and where they are matters more than those particular elections. There is more exposure and more risk. The "out" party isn't guaranteed to win every Senate race in this kind of situation, they just have a really big advantage, and that advantage is reduced depending on the partisan lean of a state.

The average used by 538 when they wrote an article about this was using election cycles that go back a lot further, so the new average these days is probably closer to 100% retention rate than the previous 95% or so. But again, this is arguably one of if not thee worst map either party has faced since the 17th amendment was ratified, so it's not quite the same. Holding every seat and making new gains is tough but obviously not impossible.

I still think Democrats are more likely to do that than not, but I'd be lying if I wasn't a bit nervous about North Dakota. The lack of data makes it really hard to know what is going on.