Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) recently announced what we all knew as going to be her position of the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh: she’s voting against him. Is it because of the sexual misconduct allegations that were dropped at the 11thhour; allegations that have zero witnesses or evidence? Nope. It was because Judge Kavanaugh was a little soft on hard money, or something.

“It is his allegiance to the position that unlimited donations and dark anonymous money, from even foreign interests, should be allowed to swamp the voices of individuals that has been the determining factor in my decision to vote no on his nomination,” she said in a statement. Odd since McCaskill is benefitting from Senate Majority PAC, which is mostly fueled by wealthy left wing millionaires and billionaires who don’t live in Missouri.

McCaskill is one of the most vulnerable,if not the most vulnerable, senators running for re-election cycle. All the red state Democrats, where Trump just destroyed Hillary Clinton in 2016 are in very precarious re-election territory. This Kavanaugh fight has already put the screws to them. It’s pretty much a no-win situation. They could vote for him, but that means becoming outcasts in their own party and frozen out of much needed financial resources, which they will desperately need. Oh, and endless harassment from the progressive grassroots. They could announce their opposition, maintain the communication lines to the Democratic war chests, but lose their jobs come January.

So, how has Claire fared since she announced that she’s a “no” vote on Kavanaugh? Bre Payton at The Federalist noted that not only are voters in her state less likely to vote for her come November, but female voters are now less likely to vote for her as well:

A new poll by Remington Research Group found that of the 1,555 likely Missouri voters surveyed late last week, 48 percent said they were planning to vote for Republican candidate Josh Hawley while 46 percent said they planned to vote for McCaskill. When asked if McCaskill’s opposition to Kavanaugh affected their voting decision, 49 percent said it made them less likely to vote for the Democratic senator, while only 42 percent it made them more likely to vote for her.

Maybe Claire knew her gig was up. She survived a 2012 re-election bid, in which she was also vulnerable, because the Republican candidate, Todd Akin, decided to make horrible and inexcusably stupid remarks about rape. Democrats nationalized the remarks—and the fact that Richard Mourdock stepped in with his dumb remarks about rape and pregnancy only compounded the issue. He was running for U.S. Senate in Indiana and was eventually defeated by Sen. Joe Donnelly.

It’s quite possible the three times a charm isn’t in the cards for Claire. One can hope.