Gun Control Groups Targeting Last Remaining Pro-Gun Dem Senator

The gun control folks are targeting Heidi Heitcamp, the only pro-gun Democrat left in the Senate. Holding out the possibility that Everytown thinks attacking Heitcamp helps her (which it probably does in North Dakota), they would be foolish to weaken her, and here’s why:


This is what the 2018 Senatorial Elections look like. You have potential Dem pickups, if they are very lucky, in Nevada. The rest the GOP has a solid lock on. But the potential GOP pickups are pretty astounding, assuming the GOP doesn’t blow it, which I have full confidence they can do! But some of those pickups are probably a given, even if the typical suck sets in.

The main reason I’m not dumping on Toomey too much, even though he’s pissed me off and lied to us, is because I need his R ass in that seat, and even though he’s a worm, if he wins he’ll keep the Dems from picking up that seat.


The Dems just need to pick up 5 of those, and we’re defending a lot of purple states this time. We don’t really have any plausible pickups except for maybe Nevada, but probably not, unless we’re very lucky, and the GOP is not usually lucky. We have a whole lot to lose. Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Florida. Do you feel good about that map? I don’t.

If the Dems were to pick up the Senate in 2016 and the White House, the Second Amendment is almost certainly dead, since the Heller and McDonald decisions would either be reversed or limited to their specific facts (which is pretty useless unless you live in Chicago or DC). If we lose the Senate, and win the White House, we’re more likely to get another Souter, since the Dems are certain to block all but the squishiest nominee. So the GOP has to hold the Senate in 2016 if we’re going to hold the line.

9 thoughts on “Gun Control Groups Targeting Last Remaining Pro-Gun Dem Senator”

  1. I thought the Republicans were the stupid party. By purging the DNC of anyone pro-gun, they are forfeiting most of the country.

    I think Hillary loses huge.

  2. Is Rubio still standing out of the FL race? I don’t feel super confident about anything in the Senate this cycle. The FL GOP has done a generally shit job of fielding candidates for the Senate. They still haven’t unseated Nelson despite many opportunities over the years.

  3. “if he wins he’ll keep the Dems from picking up that seat.”

    Are we talking about the same Toomey I watched on TV, participating in the Dem’s filibuster?

    If so, I don’t understand how we can not have a Democrat in that seat, after November.

    1. I don’t think you’ll agree with my thinking, but I believe if the Dems win and you have Hillary in the White House, the Second Amendment is dead for sure. If the GOP holds the Senate, maybe, maybe there is a prayer Hillary has to pick a bit of a compromise candidate where we may at least get the court to agree not to hear any more cases for a bit.

      We got this far because Scalia convinced one of the liberal justices to always vote not to hear Second Amendment cases (most believe it’s Ginsburg, who will not likely survive the next Presidency). That allowed him to pass on cases until he was sure he had the votes on the Court to win. Some suspect he was working on Kagan to fill that role once Ginsburg retired from the court or died on the bench. But Scalia is dead now, so who knows if that will hold.

      But if the Senate is in the Dems hand after all this, all bets are off. She’ll get exactly who she wants, and if what she wants is someone who will vote to hear a case that could overturn Heller or McDonald, she’ll get it.

      So to me Toomey in 2016 is an ass in a seat with the right party. It’s not rah, rah team. I could give a shit about the GOP, and I could give a shit about Toomey. I won’t beg people to vote for him. But when I’m surrounded by shit sandwiches, I’m thinking of how I can eat the fewest, and I think it’s better to bring Toomey’s reckoning in 2022 than in 2016. Though, the ideal would be Toomey loses in 2016 but still denying the Dems a majority (and all the committee chairs). But given the states that are up in 2016, I think it’s not unlikely the Dems get the Senate back.

      1. I understand your thinking, but I don’t see how having an R ass in a seat guarantees much of anything, when it’s an R who already actively worked with the Ds against gun rights, and against his own party. Of course a “maybe” pro-gun vote is better than a guaranteed anti-gun vote, I guess.

        My problem is I’ve watched that lesser-evil logic allow scumbag Republicans off the hook for years now. They never get punished, and more often get rewarded, and too often we pay the price repeatedly along the way. Nothing they do is ever quite bad enough to punish them in the only way they care about, because their opponent is always a Democrat, and it always seems the future of the world hangs on the current election.

        I’m embarrassed to take my metaphors from pop culture, but I’ve always agreed with Vito Corleone that “treachery must never be forgiven.” I personally cannot remember an example when, for a scumbag Republican, it wasn’t forgiven. I’ve always wondered what would happen if we broke that cycle. I’m losing hope of living to see it.

  4. It doesn’t look good for ‘pro-gun’ rights here in the US. As I stated in a previous post there’s only one way to stop the loss of our Rights—The sad thing is we’re simply not ‘ready’ to do what we need to do…No, I’m not talking about violence. I’m talking about getting at least 5% of the population to participate–>organize and levy the promise to quit our jobs on the same date if our demands are not met (ie: repeal all 50,000 unconstitutional gun laws)…Follow through if the demands are not met and then become a massive drain on the system (apply for welfare, social services, etc..). Just by levying the promise our economy will go into a tailspin (earlier than expected)–I’m not advocating causing damage, however we’ve been backed into a corner here People. Continuing to play this losing game is completely pointless–and as we’re seeing, a losing proposition.

Comments are closed.