Four Big-Name Dems Pay the Price for Voting No on Kavanaugh

Chip Somodevilla & Scott Olson & Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Democratic Senate candidates who voted no on the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh learned a hard lesson Tuesday night.

According to Fox News, every Democratic incumbent from a “toss-up” state who voted no lost their seat. This includes well-known leaders who were outspoken in their opposition to the Supreme Court justice.

Here are four Democratic senators who lost their seat:

Heidi Heitkamp

Heidi Heitkamp lost her race for the North Dakota seat. The incumbent was originally going to vote for Kavanaugh but chose against it due to his emotion-filled testimony after being accused of sexual misconduct.

“I saw somebody who was very angry, who was very nervous,” Heitkamp said.

Bill Nelson

The outgoing Florida senator claimed he wanted an FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh due to the testimony of accuser Christine Blasey Ford.

“I’ve had many questions about Judge Kavanaugh and in an effort to be fair, I wanted to meet with him, but he was not available,” Nelson said. “Dr. Ford’s testimony was compelling and raises questions about his character and, therefore, there needs to be a full FBI investigation. As stated before, I will vote no.”

Although there were multiple FBI background checks and an investigation, Nelson still voted no. He is now seeking a recount in his race against Rick Scott.

John Donnelly:

John Donnelly of Indiana took a more extreme route, insinuating that Kavanaugh was guilty of what he was accused of.

“As I have made clear before, sexual assault has no place in our society,” he said. “When it does occur, we should listen to the survivors and work to ensure it never happens again.”

Claire McCaskill:

Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, dug a deeper hole by releasing a lengthy statement against Kavanaugh.

“He has revealed his bias against limits on campaign donations which places him completely out of the mainstream of this nation,” McCaskill wrote in a statement, saying she was “also uncomfortable about his view on presidential power as it relates to the rule of law, and his position that corporations are people.”

What do you think?

19 pledges
Upvote Downvote
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Heitkamp and McCaskill, and I think Donnelly, all knew that a “No” vote on Judge Kavanaugh was going to be a death sentence to their tenure in the Senate. So they either truly believed that Judge Kavanaugh was not qualified or they chose to vote the demoncrap party line over their constituents. Nelson used to be a middle of the road senator and support FL, but after President Trump was elected he became a resist and obstruct senator.

Phyllis Softa

All 3 provided reasons for their vote. Heitkamp was a prosecutor of sexual assault–her mother was also sexually assaulted. Donnelly and Nelson also found Dr. Ford credible but that was not the reason for their vote. They voted in the interest of the majority of their constituents, not corporate donors. Nelson was in the Senate in 2009, when all but 3 Republican Senator voted against the stimulus bill for the worst recession since the Depression if you wish to talk obstruction, start there.

Rocky Drummond

FOX’s conclusion is based on just a convenient coincidence for FOX.

John Donnelly ran a terrible campaign for a Democrat, for example. For a Republican, it was typical, still not good but similar to what an R would commonly do and say. Donnelly actually portayed himself as an R! Why on Earth would a Democrat vote for a candidate like that? What would be the point when there is a bonafide R also running? It was a failed overall strategy that sank his chances, not opposition to Kavanaugh.

I. Chin

Consequences. They set politics above doing their jobs. In the military it’s called “mission” and does not care for “feelings” or politics. Good.

Phyllis Softa

On what are you drawing the conclusion?—Putting politics above the interest of the constituents, would have been voting FOR their corporate donor interests. Would you want to go down in history as the Senator that put an accused sexual assaulter on the SCOTUS with the explanation “it doesn’t matter”?

‘They Have Part of the Responsibility for Governing’: McConnell Is Prepared to Work With House Democrats

Ohio Professor Faced Punishment for Refusing to Call Student ‘Miss’ — Now He’s Suing the University