Could Democrat Sen. Heitkamp Save Her Seat if She Votes for Kavanaugh?
Down by 10 points in latest poll and respondents want Kavanaugh confirmed.
An NBC North Dakota News poll shows incumbent Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) down by 10 points to her Republican opponent, Rep. Kevin Cramer.
Cramer is up 51-41. 8% of those polled remain undecided.
The majority of the respondents named the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh as their main issue.
Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com shared his analysis:
The survey was conducted by Strategic Research Associates, an organization I’ve never heard of before. The folks at FiveThirtyEight.com don’t have them graded, either, so I’m not sure how much stock to put into this particular survey.
Though, to be fair, I’m not sure how much stock to put in any survey at this point in the cycle. I suspect the reality of the Senate race is that it’s close (certainly much closer than a 10 point Cramer lead), and opinions among the undecided are very fluid. Things could break either way, very quickly.
Remember that in 2012, when Heitkamp was first elected to the Senate, there was polling out weeks before election day showing her Republican opponent with a 10 point lead. She went on to win the race.
Still, the fact that Cramer has consistently led every single public poll in this race going back to February makes me think it’s his race to lose at this point.
The Cook Political Report still has North Dakota has a toss-up, but this is a red state. Heitkamp is the only Democratic to win in the state in the last eight years, but that victory came with less than one percentage point. Plus, President Donald Trump won the state with 63% of the vote and 123,036 more votes than failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
The news about Kavanaugh doesn’t shock me because a Fox News poll in September made in known that those in North Dakota want Kavanaugh. The poll found that “[O]ne in three voters who say they could change their mind before November say they would be less likely to vote for Heitkamp if she opposes Kavanaugh, while 21 percent would be more likely.”
Judicial Crisis Network has spent $400,000 on ads to encourage Heitkamp and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) to confirm Kavanaugh. Like Heitkamp, Manchin represents a conservative state that chose Trump over Hillary by a large amount and wants Kavanaugh confirmed.
Here is the group’s ad for Manchin:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The only way a red state democrat in a close race can win is if they announce they will switch to Republican after the election. Though I’m not sure about the dynamic.
Maybe an independent.
In a word? No.
The Democrat slime machine has so enraged the morons on the far left that if she votes FOR Kavanaugh she’ll get crushed by the left, and if she votes AGAINST Kavanaugh she’ll get crushed by the right.
At this point her only hope is to stay the course and vote against him.
i agree. As far as her CAREER is concerned, she should sign a contract with a TV network like CNN, MSNBC, and get a job with them after being voted out of office.
If it were me, I’d weigh evil stares from Chucky for 6 yrs vs 6 yrs of watching Oprah from the couch.
This is why the Lefties in the Senate, aided and abetted by Flake and Collins, are trying to delay the confirmation vote, so that their vulnerable incumbents in red states don’t have to go on the record. McConnell needs to ram thru the confirmation vote before the mid-terms. Right now it will be a no lose proposition for our side.
No, the only winning strategy for her would to become an outspoken defender of Kavanaugh and a vigorous one too.
Calling out Feinstein and her party’s pattern of personal destruction in addition to naming names, she could turn around these numbers.
But, we all know this won’t happen.
That would only be accomplished by the rarest of species; an ethical Democrat
A Democrat pulling a CYA move would not be very rare.
Khrushchev did just that at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party. He catapulted with his condemnation of Stalin’s policies. Gutsy but possible.
While I understand the importance of Kavanaugh being made a SC justice, I find it hard to believe that is the main issue these days.
The left has done a bang up job on his character assassination that it seems it would be less likely to be the main issue for voters. Especially given those who are low information voters, who heard something about him drinking and sexual assault.
That just doesn’t really square.
It’s because that is the fickle item of the news right now, and it has an outrage level being generated that is OFF THE CHARTS with the Republican / Conservative base.
There is SO MUCH ANGER being generated by the Democrat Party Members actions that it is actually moving the Overton window as to what the basis for a complaint SHOULD be, and has finally awakened the sleeping Conservative base to say “WHAT THE FREAKING HELL, #MeToo Jack-Asses? We’re SICK AND TIRED of a woman, making an OBVIOUSLY fabricated complaint, at the last second, having to “be believed” simply because she has two X chromosomes. We’re MAD AS HELL, AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.”
The Democrats are run like the mob. You don’t do anything against the family. If they vote for Kav, it will be because the leaders have realized they will lose the vote narrowly and will release them to vote in the affirmative in order to save themselves in the election. Otherwise, they will follow orders and get in line.
It would help a lot if Cramer were conservative – but his CR score is low enough to make him another potential Flake or Collins.
That places Cramer with most Republicans already in DC. It’s the same with McSally in AZ and every Republican (except Cox for governor) in CA. Because of Trump, that’s ok. For once, it really is different this time. They will be part of a shrinking and weakening wing. “Go along to get along” will lead to a better place with new leadership.
Personally I want her vote for Kavanaugh and then her seat turned Red and then, Kavanaugh’s seat firmly on the Supreme Court. Let’s get it all.
Yep…best case scenario.
Delaying the vote to after the election is the miracle that Dems are hoping for. That is why Graham’s suggestion makes sense, that Trump should renominate him after the election should he lose the first vote.
No one is expecting the Dems will regain the Senate and are more likely to lose 2-5 seats. Renders Schumer’s “take one for the team” option pointless. Vote now! No more delays!
Oh, President Trump should do one BETTER than that. IF Kavanaugh’s nomination fails, he should DEMAND that McConnell declare the Senate “in recess” and RECESS-APPOINT Kavanaugh to the seat.
Now THAT’S interesting. Imagine the leftist rage. The anti-Trump communists are morphing into the iconic “Rage Boy” from when the Religion of Eternal Rage was dominating the news with their endless outrage. At some point, the dial reaches its limit and can’t turn any higher.
“https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/409516-mcconnell-says-only-senators-will-see-fbis-kavanaugh-report”
Want to bet on that one? I bet selective leaks by the Dems.
Does that mean that only 100 copies will be issued? There are ways to find leakers if they are prepared in a certain way. The FBI should declare that any leakers WILL be found and charged.
I am uncomfortable in that this gives cover to borderline senators to vote “no”. Now it can become they said – they said at the senatorial level. This could be double plus ungood.
democrats lie. They cheat. They are hypocrites. Their primary goal is power over the American people, not power FOR the American people. That’s why their policies always result in more government and more regulation, but worse results. The democrats then argue for more government and more regulation to “fix” the misery they have unleashed. Never, ever vote democrat. Don’t vote democrat no matter what their stance is on Judge Kavenaugh. There might be some democrats who have to vote for Judge Kavenaugh to keep their seat, but if you reelect them, they will immediately move to an anti-MAGA agenda, and probably move to impeach him. Never, ever and I mean never vote democrat.
There are some very rare circumstances where that does not apply, but in general you are spot on.
Looks like if she doesn’t vote yes, she has a near-zero chance of being re-elected. Wouldn’t surprise me if she took the “save your own ass first” utilitarian approach and did the only thing that gives her a chance of remaining a Senator.
I’d like to ask the pundits like Mary Chastain just how full of jello do you think the votes are that these people can vote Porgressive for six years andd save their deat with what used to be a no-brainer SCOTUS vote?
Mary I would like to say to you and the pundits people aren’t ovely impressed if you DON’T do something that was unheard of before 2016 and that was vote against a perfectly qualified SCOTUS candidate.
People are not SWAYED that you managed to vote for an man with impeccable resume and forgt everything else you HAVE NOT voted for like tax cuts. A wall against illegal aliens, voting FOR Obamacare staying put.
Have a little respect for the people o ND and elsewhere that they aren’t going to keep a Seantor that vote against their wishes time and time again for a SCOTUS vote that used to be automatic.
I will say if she blows the automatic SCOTUS vote she will lose even more voters but she won’t win either way.
They claim she voted with Trump over half the time, but CR rates her at 6. So the likelihood of her voting with him after getting re-elected is more likely around zero.
The NYT has a long story about how (it claims) Trump got rich. He is accused, at age 2, of getting his father to give him a big salary and …
Why this story now? Why break the anti Kavanaugh reporting?
Robert E. Lee’s last words were, “Strike the tent.”
This afternoon, the New York Times struck the tent on the Anti-Kavanaugh Circus by publishing a 14,000-word report on President Trump’s financial history.
It’s over because the New York Times wants to change subjects. Polls show Marxist Democrats are taking a pounding over this nomination in red states, which means they will lose Senate seats.
So the Times changed the subject with the story — “4 Ways Fred Trump Made Donald Trump and His Siblings Rich” — which it bills as a blockbuster but we all know it is a diversion.
Within an hour of posting the story online, it had 80,000 mentions on Twitter, mainly from liberal loyalists eager for another venue to vent their hate.
It is Kavanaugh Who? time for liberals.
The story could have been held. A story of that length consuming pages of newsprint belong in the Sunday newspaper, not in the middle of another busy week in the news.
My guess is the story was supposed to run this Sunday, but a panic-stricken New York Times was horrified to witness the evaporation of its dream of the Democratic Party taking over the Senate and leaving a Supreme Court vacancy open for a Democratic president in 2020.
The story about President Trump’s fortune is the Stormy Daniels of financial reporting.
The Times story said, “In Donald J. Trump’s version of how he got rich, he was the master dealmaker who parlayed an initial $1 million loan from his father into a $10 billion empire. It was his guts and gumption that overcame setbacks, and his father, Fred C. Trump, was simply a cheerleader. But an investigation by The New York Times shows that by age 3, Donald Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building.”
Isn’t that how NYT’s Sulzberger family operated?
http://coldfury.com/
The guy is literally a fucking genius! At TWO he was earning $200k!!! W FUCKING genius I tell you!!!
“The NYT has a long story about how (it claims) Trump got rich….”
*yawn*
We came across some old copies of the NY Times with famous headlines (Man Walks On Moon, etc.) we had been saving. They went right into the trash as worthless.
I think she’s probably toast either way. Which is good!
Could Democrat Sen. Heitkamp Save Her Seat if She Votes for Kavanaugh?
Perhaps. BUT to be at all effective, she’d have to mount a spirited, full-throated defense of Kavanaugh, not just a reluctant and grudging vote to confirm.
If she were to do so and if she is re-elected she’d emerge as the Democrat’s McCain: give me what I demand, or I’ll not keep party discipline!
But does she have the stomach to do it?
She might not win if she votes to confirm but she’ll definitely lose if she votes against confirmation. Her choices are vote no and lose, vote yes and maybe win.
Heitkamp is toast. That’s why she’ll be a solid “no” vote regardless of what happens. To betray the Democratic crime family requires some hope that it will benefit you.
Heitkamp is ‘known’ for pandering to the voters, saying whatever will get her elected and making all sorts of outrageous promises – then voting Democrat as soon as she get’s to Washington.
I doubt anything will change if she get’s elected. Her opponent, Cramer is another weak GOP loser though, so as is typical, the Republican base really has little choice.
It’s depressing to learn that the GOP candidate is another RINO, but I can’t say it’s surprising.
Voter her out. The other person will have to do until a better candidate arrives.