Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Could Democrat Sen. Heitkamp Save Her Seat if She Votes for Kavanaugh?

    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 shared his analysis:

    The survey was conducted by Strategic Research Associates, an organization I’ve never heard of before. The folks at 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:


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    CKYoung | October 2, 2018 at 7:08 pm

    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.

    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.

      txvet2 in reply to Conan. | October 2, 2018 at 9:41 pm

      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.

    VaGentleman | October 3, 2018 at 1:31 am

    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?

    Othniel | October 3, 2018 at 6:52 am

    I think she’s probably toast either way. Which is good!

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend